Haven't spy satellites had super clear resolution for quite a few decades now?
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
94 points (99.0% liked)
Privacy
31876 readers
365 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I used to work for an imaging satellite company. And yes - spy satellites are crazy powerful. The real problem is one of bandwidth. Crazy powerful spy satellites are expensive - and there aren't a lot of them.
So everybody is competing for time on them. Satellite images have been traditionally expensive and rare. We web intelligence agencies have to take turns and sometimes miss important events due to scheduling or timing conflicts.
The thing these new satellites offer is broad coverage. When you have a few hundred small-sats there's just many, many more opportunities to have eyes on the part of the world you're interested in.
All that said, you want to pay attention to the resolution of the images. The place I worked for was providing imagery about 1-meter resolution. E.g. each pixel in the image corresponded to about 1sq-meter of earth. We figured this was a good compromise between image quality and privacy. Enough to count cars, see weather patterns, make out groups of people, but identifying any given person was right out.
So if you see an imaging company throwing a bazillion imaging small-sats up - its worth checking what their reported resolution is. 0.5m means a real tall dude would still only be 2 pixels. But 1cm resolution means you could count their teeth.
As far as I remember, there's a resolution limit to classical imaging, but I guess that may be overcome by using a mesh of satellites and some other clever methods
Yes. The real difference is that the newer tech is cheap and fast enough to be useful in real time to general industry and local/state government, not just spooks.
I wonder how much laser power its sensors can withstand.
Are you talking about launching your own satellite with the ability to aim a laser at another satellite while in orbit, or are you talking about attempting to point a ground based laser at something moving at roughly Mach 24 or faster?
Beam decoherence is a pretty big problem when you are lasering through the entire atmosphere, and both scenarios require an astounding degree of precision.
The latter - targeting from ground. While that sounds daunting, it's already possible. Sats can aim data laser beams at other sats at even higher relative speeds.
Beam decoherence is a pretty big problem when you are lasering through the entire atmosphere, and both scenarios require an astounding degree of precision.
Beam coherence is the only problem with targeting sats from the ground. But remember, these sats come with big telescopes to collect as much light as they can. It may not take a lot of radiative flux to overload their sensors. I wonder how much it will take to completely fry them.
Honey, the REAL question you're going to have to answer is how the fuck you're going to target an object around the size of your face from 400km away while it's moving at thousands of miles per hour. Not only THAT, you also have to shoot it within a very narrow angle to ensure the power of the laser hits the sensor directly. Not only THAT THAT, but you also have to be completely certain the camera doesn't have some sort of aperture that's closed whenever you're FIRIN YUR LAZOR.
So if you have inside information about the exact times that the aperture will be open, the exact angle it will be photographing at, precisely what trajectory it's on and where it's going (this one's actually easy, most space objects are tracked rather precisely and publicly), then maybe... MAYBE, IF YOU CAN TRACK IT, you'll get off a zap or two.
And even then it would only work as long as the internal filters aren't designed to block common laser wavelengths. They're probably not, because everything else is so astonishingly stupid that it's not going to happen.
Honey, the REAL answer is such tech ALREADY EXISTS! Your cynical snark doesn't make you smart or right. It just makes you one ignorant fellow. I'm not even going to bother answering you, because you aren't here for answers. You are here to insult, annoy and pick a fight with strangers. Go look for it elsewhere.
I do astrophotography, dingus. I'm well aware such mounts exist. I'm also aware of NASA's history of shooting lasers at the moon to track changes in its distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiments
Have a look at that table. See all those specific wavelengths? If your dumbass idea is even remotely feasible then every single photographic satellite in orbit will ABSOLUTELY have filters that will carve out those narrow bands and others that could be realistically used to damage a camera. Lasers operate at specific wavelengths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laser_types
I do, however, doubt that any satellite has this type of filtration because this idea is inherently stupid. Say you do somehow manage this. Guess what? You've put a few pixels out of commission. What happens then? It's pretty fuckin' simple. The satellite moves slightly and another picture gets taken with the obscured area now in view.
Because that's how satellite imaging works.
If you laser is powerful, accurate, and fast tracking enough to destroy an entire imaging sensor from 400km away you're better off just using it to ransom passing aircraft.
Which is just as stupid.
If that's is the case, how do you explain this?
That's why I just create a nuclear explosion that is brighter than the sun
Sats that beam data to other sats do not have to worry about the atmosphere, nor are they using anywhere near the kind of power involved to fry the other sats. Its orders of magnitude greater power for that, which means more more weight and thus launch cost.
Beam decoherence is a /huge/ problem when trying to go from ground to low earth orbit.
You would again end up needing a pretty significant power supply along with exceptionally precise tracking.
Im talking military grade equipment here, massive expensive and complex. Not something you could whip up in your garage, unless you worked at it for a decade, and if you did that, youd end up in jail.
I really want to stress how precise your tracking needs to be. Assuming you precisely know the orbital trajectory, your /exact/ location, the rotation of the earth... you would need to have a mechanical system capable of sustained tracking to... what like a few (roughly 3 by updated calculations) arc seconds, something like that, to hit something /and stay on target for probably 30 minutes/ that is 120 miles away, roughly the size of an SUV
EDIT: Fixed up my numbers, I was thinking in terms of the wrong unit.
Point is... this approach requires an astounding degree of tracking precision that is basically impossible unless you are a defense contractor.
Tracking a thing this accurately alone is practically impossible. And I mean that literally. There is no practical way you can do this, unless you consider starting up your own engineering firm to solve this, and you are allowed to use a whole bunch of tech with current security classifications, unless you consider that practical.
If you do, hi Elon Musk, didnt realize you were on lemmy.
We’re acutely aware of the privacy implications
Yes, I bet they are. I bet their monetization strategy is "pay us to do the shameful dirty work."
Military contractors be like:
At least I'm safe inside my mind.
For now
Elon is already working to change that! :)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Anyone living in the modern world has grown familiar with diminishing privacy amid a surge security cameras, trackers built into smartphones, facial recognition systems, drones and other forms of digital monitoring.
“This is a giant camera in the sky for any government to use at any time without our knowledge,” said Jennifer Lynch, general counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who in 2019 urged civil satellite regulators to address this issue.
“It’s taking us one step closer to a Big-Brother-is-watching kind of world,” added Jonathan C. McDowell, a Harvard astrophysicist who publishes a monthly report on civilian and military space developments.
As predicted, pictures from orbit have continually improved in quality, aiding news reporting on wars, refugees, secret bases, human rights abuses, environmental destruction, natural disasters and military buildups.
Albedo’s website says its imagery can help governments “monitor hotspots, eliminate uncertainty, and mobilize with speed.” The company, in listing its core values, says it supports “data-driven investigative journalism” among other activities that “ensure we improve the world we live in.”
Illustrating the fleet’s observational powers, Mr. Tri, the Albedo co-founder, said the space cameras could detect such vehicle details as sunroofs, racing stripes and items in a flatbed truck.
The original article contains 1,851 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 89%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Very useful if you have a legit warrant.
Especially when the cops tank & swat team need to know where the dog is to shoot it.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/gOV9pmdz1IU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
A while ago that could of been for smoking some weed. I don't trust those fuckers with that kind of power.
It is exactly as useful even if you don't!
We've got laws for that, just takes a while for them to catch up to innovation.
I live in the US so I don't believe in "the rule of law".
In Germany you can get your home hidden on Google maps since the start. So it's possible!