AT: Genocide – No Solve – Shutter control

AT: Genocide – No Solve – Shutter control

The topic of shutter-control, i.e. the restriction on distribution of satellite imagery through government directives, is a much-discussed topic. However, until now, shutter-control has not been widely used, with the exception of during the Gulf-war when the public was denied access to several types of updated imagery over Iraq and Kuwait. The idea behind shutter control is that, according to the license granted to commercial US satellite operators, the distribution of imagery “during periods when national security or international obligations and/or [US] foreign policies may be compromised, as defined by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State” falls under strict restrictions of the US government. With more and more non-US satellites becoming available, UN humanitarian agencies will be able to access non-US imagery should the US government impose shutter control on satellite companies operating under US licenses. Of course, satellites operated under other nation’s licenses may also be restricted, such as the case with the French SPOT system during the Gulf war. Compared to the cost of data and copyright restrictions, shutter-control should not be considered a major limitation – at least not for the moment. More in-depth discussion on shutter-control can be found in the recently published Secrets for Sale (Dehqanzada and Florini 2000).

In March 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 23 (PDD-23) which, for the first time, established an industrial policy permitting U.S. firms to obtain licenses to market imagery products and systems commercially. The stated goal of this policy was to "enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness in the field of remote sensing space capabilities while at the same time protecting U.S. national security and foreign policy interests." Under the terms of the directive, the U. S. Government retains "shutter control" of any commercial imagery systems licensed for sale to foreign purchasers by U.S. firms outside of a government-to-government agreement. This means the U.S. Government would retain the right to curtail the use of any imaging system sold by a U.S. firm to a foreign purchaser when it perceived its national security interests were affected. It was felt that this authority was needed in the event a domestic or foreign purchaser sought to use the system contrary to U.S. interests. Any proposed sale or transfer by a foreign recipient of sensitive components or subsystems also would be subject to U.S. Government approval.

AT: Genocide – Natives – Rights

LandSats violate the rights of indigenous peoples
Madsen 94 (Wayne, Lead Sci, Comp Sci Corp, spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/tempe/madsen, DA 7/7/11, OST)

This paper investigates the problems associated with remote sensing from space-based platforms as they relate to the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples around the world. Many nations and international organizations recognize a right of individual privacy. This paper advances the notion of a right to collective privacy, what can best be described as a "communal right of privacy," especially as it relates to the rights of indigenous people to be free of wanton exploitation from data on their lands and waters that are collected from orbiting surveillance and sensing platforms. Indigenous peoples argue that since they are the direct descendants of the original peoples who settled their lands before conquest by outsiders, they have an "inalienable" right to their territories and the natural resources contained therein (Nagengast, Stavenhagen, and Kearney, 1992, 31). Clearly, the sparse number of international treaties and other regimes that seek to protect the rights of indigenous people to their lands and resources must be strengthened to address privacy protections against wanton snooping from overhead surveillance satellites.

GIS infringes on the rights of native Americans
Madsen 94 (Wayne, Lead Sci, Comp Sci Corp, spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/tempe/madsen, DA 7/7/11, OST)

Satellite-based geographic information systems (GIS), if not properly regulated, could infringe on indigenous rights to privacy. As early as 1983 the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) established a GIS for ten tribes across the United States. The system, called the Indian Integrated Resource Information Program (IIRIP), was designed to allow the ten tribes to promote the use of GIS in the management of their lands. However, the system was used more heavily by the IIRIP's National Center and the BIA than by the Indian tribes concerned (Marchand and Winchell, 1994, 49-51). This inevitably leads to the question of who benefits more from such "wampum" technology, the native Americans or the Federal government acting as forward scouts for exploitative industry? The Colville Confederated Tribe in Washington State was faced with the dilemma of the BIA refusing to relinquish control of some GIS-derived information to the tribal confederacy. The confederacy was concerned that GIS maps detailing archeological and cultural sites might fall into the wrong hands, thus disrupting the sites. It was decided that the confederacy's Physical Resource Department would be the central authority for administering the GIS data resources (Marchand and Winchell, 1994, 50).
GIS data is used to deny right to Indian nations
Madsen 94 (Wayne, Lead Sci @ Comp Sci Corp, spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/tempe/madsen, DA 7/7/11, OST)

GIS data used indiscriminately can be used to deny Indian nations their rights under existing international treaties. For example, the United States government and the Nez Perce tribe signed a treaty in June 11, 1855 that preserved the right of the Nez Perce to hunt, gather roots and berries, and raise livestock on "open and unclaimed lands" outside the reservation. Subsequent treaties squeezed the tribe into smaller parcels of land so that presently the Idaho reservation territory resembles a patchwork not unlike the recently disestablished South African "Bantustans." GIS data can be used by outside exploiters to deny tribes like the Nez Perce access to their rightful lands and squeeze them onto unproductive tracts. The Nez Perce also stress security and privacy for data contained within their GIS systems in hopes of preventing any wrongful exploitation (Meyers, 1993, 35-37). A recent Canadian study concluded that Canadian Indian tribes or "band councils" have a right and a duty to adopt their own data protection codes and fair information practices (Peladeau, 1994, 15). Such legislation could be tailored to include as personal information that data which collectively applies to the tribe or band at large. Non-traditional data concerning cultural affairs and natural resources might be included in an expanded definition of what constitutes collective privacy information. Any Canadian data protection and fair information code of practice for Indian bands might also serve as a useful model for indigenous peoples in the United States and other parts of the world. Indigenous peoples have historically reviled attempts by central governments to collect information on them. Many native groups have felt "abused" by intrusive population censuses and other types of surveys affecting their land and activities. Many enumerators and surveyors considered indigenous respondents as nothing more than "sample units" and not as people (Casley and Lury, 1987, 123). Subjecting indigenous peoples to remote space-based imagery and surveillance without proper guarantees of their rights to privacy and self-determination can only exacerbate existing strained feelings.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.58 Mb.

Share with your friends: