Library: A Round-up of Reading
June 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Posted in Library | Leave a commentBlogs
AEA Attacks ETS – Aviation Law Prof Blog
Opposition to EU ETS Continues – Aviation Law Prof Blog
Helicopter Crash Lawyers Bribe Judge, Settle Case, Get Sued – Aviation Law Monitor
Rasad-1: Iran Launches Its Second Satellite – All Things Nuclear
Iran Claims Launch of Second Homebrew Satellite – Danger Room
Look Out Above! Russia May Target U.S. Sats With Laser Jet – Danger Room
When Secret Sats Spy on Us, Monsieur Legault Spies Back – Danger Room
Blind Eye In The Sky: Weather Satellites Lose Funding – Geospatial Science and Technology Policy
Gingrich and Pawlenty debate space policy in New Hampshire – Space Politics
SASC Finshes Work on DOD Authorization Bill – Space Policy Online
Impact of the Obama Space Policy One Year On — Experts Say It’s All in the Implementation – Space Policy Online
Earth Observation Data Continuity and New Approach to Climate Change Debate Needed – Space Policy Online
Republican Lawmakers Criticize NASA’s Lack of Compliance with Law – Space Policy Online
Drones and Targeting – Opinio Juris
Injured Pedestrian Can’t Sue Google for Providing Faulty Map Information — Rosenberg v. Harwood – Technology and Marketing Law Blog
Google JV applies for online mapping license in China – Ogle Earth
“Space Partnering” Means More U.S. Funded Space Work For Europe? – Songs of Space and Nuclear Warfare
S. 1223: Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011
June 20, 2011 at 10:44 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces, Remote Sensing Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
S. 1223: Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 was introduced on June 16, 2011 by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN).
H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act
June 20, 2011 at 10:31 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces, Remote Sensing Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act was introduced on June 14, 2011 by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT3):
HR 2168 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2168
To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011
Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.
This Act may be cited as the `Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act’ or the `GPS Act’.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.
(a) In General- Part 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 119 the following:
`CHAPTER 120–GEOLOCATION INFORMATION
`Sec.
`2601. Definitions.
`2602. Interception and disclosure of geolocation information.
`2603. Prohibition of use as evidence of acquired geolocation information.
`2604. Emergency situation exception.
`2605. Recovery of civil damages authorized.
`Sec. 2601. Definitions
`In this chapter:
`(1) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE- The term `electronic communication service’ has the meaning given that term in section 2510.
`(2) ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE- The term `electronic surveillance’ has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).
`(3) GEOLOCATION INFORMATION- The term `geolocation information’ means, with respect to a person, any information that is not the content of a communication, concerning the location of a wireless communication device or tracking device (as that term is defined section 3117) that, in whole or in part, is generated by or derived from the operation of that device and that could be used to determine or infer information regarding the location of the person.
`(4) GEOLOCATION INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `geolocation information service’ means the provision of a global positioning service or other mapping, locational, or directional information service to the public, or to such class of users as to be effectively available to the public, by or through the operation of any wireless communication device, including any mobile telephone, global positioning system receiving device, mobile computer, or other similar or successor device.
`(5) INTERCEPT- The term `intercept’ means the acquisition of geolocation information through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.
`(6) INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- The term `investigative or law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or to make arrests for, offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses.
`(7) PERSON- The term `person’ means any employee or agent of the United States, or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.
`(8) REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE- The term `remote computing service’ has the meaning given that term in section 2711.
`(9) STATE- The term `State’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
`(10) WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE- The term `wireless communication device’ means any device that enables access to, or use of, an electronic communication system or service, remote computing service, or geolocation information service, if that device utilizes a radio or other wireless connection to access such system or service.
`(11) COVERED SERVICE- The term `covered services’ means electronic communication service, remote computing service, or of geolocation information service.
`Sec. 2602. Interception and disclosure of geolocation information
`(a) In General-
`(1) PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE OR USE- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to–
`(A) intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, geolocation information pertaining to another person;
`(B) intentionally disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person geolocation information pertaining to another person, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such information in violation of this paragraph;
`(C) intentionally use, or endeavor to use, any geolocation information, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such information in violation of this paragraph; or
`(D)(i) intentionally disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the geolocation information pertaining to another person intercepted by means authorized by subsections (b) through (h), except as provided in such subsections;
`(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such information in connection with a criminal investigation;
`(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation; and
`(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation.
`(2) PENALTY- Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
`(b) Exception for Information Acquired in the Normal Course of Business- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of covered services, whose facilities are used in the transmission of geolocation information, to intercept, disclose, or use that information in the normal course of the officer, employee, or agent’s employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of a geolocation information service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.
`(c) Exception for Conducting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance- Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of the official duty of the officer, employee, or agent to conduct electronic surveillance, as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
`(d) Exception for Consent-
`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person to intercept geolocation information pertaining to another person if such other person has given prior consent to such interception unless such information is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.
`(2) CHILDREN- The exception in paragraph (1) permits a parent or legal guardian of a child to intercept geolocation information pertaining to that child or to give consent for another person to intercept such information.
`(e) Exception for Public Information- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for any person to intercept or access geolocation information relating to another person through any system that is configured so that such information is readily accessible to the general public.
`(f) Exception for Emergency Information- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for any investigative or law enforcement officer or other emergency responder to intercept or access geolocation information relating to a person if such information is used–
`(1) to respond to a request made by such person for assistance; or
`(2) in circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that the life or safety of the person is threatened, to assist the person.
`(g) Exception for Theft or Fraud- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept geolocation information pertaining to the location of another person who has unlawfully taken the device sending the geolocation information if–
`(1) the owner or operator of such device authorizes the interception of the person’s geolocation information;
`(2) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation; and
`(3) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the geolocation information of the other person will be relevant to the investigation.
`(h) Exception for Warrant-
`(1) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:
`(A) COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION- The term `court of competent jurisdiction’ includes–
`(i) any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals that–
`(I) has jurisdiction over the offense being investigated;
`(II) is in or for a district in which the provider of a geolocation information service is located or in which the geolocation information is stored; or
`(III) is acting on a request for foreign assistance pursuant to section 3512 of this title; or
`(ii) a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of that State to issue search warrants.
`(B) GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY- The term `governmental entity’ means a department or agency of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof.
`(2) WARRANT- A governmental entity may intercept geolocation information or require the disclosure by a provider of covered services of geolocation information only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
`(i) Prohibition on Divulging Geolocation Information-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person providing covered services shall not intentionally divulge geolocation information pertaining to another person.
`(2) EXCEPTIONS- A person providing covered services may divulge geolocation information–
`(A) as otherwise authorized in subsections (b) through (h);
`(B) with the lawful consent of such other person;
`(C) to another person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such geolocation information to its destination; or
`(D) which was inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appears to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.
`Sec. 2603. Prohibition of use as evidence of acquired geolocation information
`Whenever any geolocation information has been acquired, no part of such information and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
`Sec. 2604. Emergency situation exception
`(a) Emergency Situation Exception- Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, may intercept geolocation information if–
`(1) such officer reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists that–
`(A) involves–
`(i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;
`(ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or
`(iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime; and
`(B) requires geolocation information be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained;
`(2) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered to authorize such interception; and
`(3) an application for an order approving such interception is made within 48 hours after the interception has occurred or begins to occur.
`(b) Failure To Obtain Court Order-
`(1) TERMINATION OF ACQUISITION- In the absence of an order, an interception of geolocation information carried out under subsection (a) shall immediately terminate when the information sought is obtained or when the application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier.
`(2) PROHIBITION ON USE AS EVIDENCE- In the event such application for approval is denied, the geolocation information shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter and an inventory shall be served on the person named in the application.
`Sec. 2605. Recovery of civil damages authorized
`(a) In General- Any person whose geolocation information is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.
`(b) Relief- In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes–
`(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;
`(2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and
`(3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
`(c) Computation of Damages- The court may assess as damages under this section whichever is the greater of–
`(1) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation; or
`(2) statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.
`(d) Defense- It is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought against an individual for conduct in violation of this chapter if such individual acted in a good faith reliance on–
`(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;
`(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2604; or
`(3) a good-faith determination that an exception under section 2602 permitted the conduct complained of.
`(e) Limitation- A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
`(f) Administrative Discipline- If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, such head shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.
`(g) Improper Disclosure Is Violation- Any willful disclosure or use by an investigative or law enforcement officer or governmental entity of information beyond the extent permitted by this chapter is a violation of this chapter for purposes of this section.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters for part 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 119 the following:
2601′.
(c) Conforming Amendments- Section 3512(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (2)–
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
`(B) a warrant or order for geolocation information or records related thereto, as provided under section 2602 of this title;’.
SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT FOR SEARCH WARRANTS TO ACQUIRE GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.
Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended–
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma and `including geolocation information.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(F) `Geolocation information’ has the meaning given that term in section 2601 of title 18, United States Code.’.
SEC. 4. FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH OBTAINING GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.
(a) Criminal Violation- Section 1039(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (2)–
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and’ at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon and `and’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) includes any geolocation information service.’;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
`(4) GEOLOCATION INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `geolocation information service’ has the meaning given that term in section 2601.’.
(b) Conforming Amendments-
(1) DEFINITION AMENDMENTS- Section 1039(h)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting `OR GPS’ after `PHONE’; and
(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 1039 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(A) in the section heading by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’;
(B) in subsection (a)–
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’; and
(ii) in paragraph (4), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’;
(C) in subsection (b)–
(i) in the subsection heading, by inserting `or GPS’ after `Phone’;
(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’ both places that term appears; and
(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’; and
(D) in subsection (c)–
(i) in the subsection heading, by inserting `or GPS’ after `Phone’;
(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’ both places that term appears; and
(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’.
(3) CHAPTER ANALYSIS- The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 1039 and inserting the following:
`1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone or GPS records information of a covered entity.’.
(c) Sentencing Guidelines-
(1) REVIEW AND AMENDMENT- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the United States Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any offense under section 1039 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section.
(2) AUTHORIZATION- The United States Sentencing Commission may amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the authority under that section had not expired.
SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF ACQUIRING GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.
(a) In General- No person may acquire the geolocation information of a person for protective activities or law enforcement or intelligence purposes except pursuant to a warrant issued pursuant to rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by section 3, or the amendments made by this Act, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).
(b) Geolocation Information Defined- In this section, the term `geolocation information’ has the meaning given that term in section 2601 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2.
H.R. 2179: To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to transfer unclaimed money recovered at airport security checkpoints to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and for other purposes
June 20, 2011 at 10:23 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
H.R. 2179: To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to transfer unclaimed money recovered at airport security checkpoints to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and for other purposes was introduced on June 14, 2011 by Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL1):
HR 2179 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2179
To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to transfer unclaimed money recovered at airport security checkpoints to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 14, 2011
Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security
A BILL
To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to transfer unclaimed money recovered at airport security checkpoints to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED MONEY RECOVERED AT AIRPORT SECURITY CHECKPOINTS.
(a) Donation to USO- Section 44945 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking `shall be retained by the Transportation Security Administration’ and all that follows before the period at the end and inserting `shall be annually transferred, without further appropriation, by the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, to provide funding for its activities in support of USO airport centers’.
(b) Annual Report- Section 515(b) of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 1318) is amended by striking `and specifically how the unclaimed money is being used to provide civil aviation security’ and inserting `and the amount of unclaimed money transferred to United Service Organizations, Incorporated, and the dates of such transfers’.
FAA Signs Agreement with Mongolia
June 20, 2011 at 9:59 am | Posted in Aviation Law | Leave a commentby P.J. Blount with the blog faculty
Source – FAA:
FAA Signs Agreement with Mongolia
FAA Signs Agreement with Mongolia The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Civil Aviation Authority of Mongolia intend to develop civil aeronautics and air commerce safety through technical assistance and training through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed on June 16, 2011. This formal bilateral relationship, the first of its kind between the two countries, is an opportunity to enhance safety and improve system capacity in Mongolia. Aviation is an important element of the Government of Mongolia’s efforts to broaden ties within the region and around the world for the landlocked country. The FAA may provide technical and managerial expertise to assist Mongolia in developing, modernizing, operating and maintaining its civil aviation infrastructure, standards, procedures, policies, training and equipment, as well as provide training to personnel from Mongolia under the MOA.
European Defense Agency (EDA) and ESA sign cooperation pact
June 20, 2011 at 9:52 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Defense News
BRUSSELS – The European Defence Agency (EDA) is set to sign an administrative agreement with the European Space Agency (ESA) at the Paris Air Show on June 20 to improve cooperation between the two agencies.
In broad terms, the EDA aggregates security and defense requirements for its 26 member states, while the ESA does the same for civilian requirements for its member states.
The arrangement will include identifying capability gaps that could be filled by space assets in carrying out EU policies (such as Common and Security Defence Capability missions on the military side) and looking at opportunities for pooling and sharing. [Full story]
Orbital Sciences Corp. awarded contract for Thaicom satellite
June 20, 2011 at 8:19 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Space Mart
Orbital Sciences Corporation report that THAICOM Plc. has awarded the company a firm contract for the Thaicom 6 communications satellite. Based on Orbital’s GEOStar-2 satellite platform, the Thaicom 6 satellite will be designed, manufactured and tested at Orbital’s satellite manufacturing facility in Dulles, VA. The Thaicom 6 satellite is planned to be launched in mid-2013.
Poland to become the 20th member of ESA
June 17, 2011 at 11:34 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty
Source: Space Daily
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has signed a decree, which will begin the accession negotiations between Poland and the European Space Agency (ESA). Depending on the results of these negotiations, Poland might become a 20th ESA member as soon as late 2012 or beginning of 2013. [Full story]
Obama Rebuffs State Proposal For Antimissile Deal With Russia
June 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty
Source: Global Security Newswire
President Obama recently declined a proposal by the State Department for an antimissile agreement with Russia, the Washington Times reported on Thursday (see GSN, June 15).
The unfinalized agreement drafted by Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher was submitted to Obama for approval ahead of a late May meeting of leaders from the Group of Eight industrialized nations in France. Had the president given the go-ahead, it could have been signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit.
The United States and NATO have sought to reach agreement with Russia for collaboration on shielding Europe from missile threats. The Obama administration, though, rejected the State Department proposal out of concern it would place curbs on U.S. antimissile efforts, a prospect that Republicans vehemently oppose and which the White House has pledged to avoid.
The concern in Washington focused on two sections of the agreement. One pledged the Defense Department against directing Europe-based missile interceptors toward Russia, a measure lawyers said the Kremlin could take as a legal promise. Moscow has demanded such an agreement in writing as part of any deal for antimissile cooperation with NATO. More…
Coalition of Geospatial Organizations Addresses Ex Parte Presentation re LightSquared Subsidiary, LLC, File No. SAT-MOD-20101118-00239
June 16, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Posted in Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a commentby Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty
Source: Coalition of Geospatial Organizations
Download Letter
Coalition of Geospatial Organizations
_________________________________________________________________________
June 15, 2011
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Ex Parte Presentation re LightSquared Subsidiary, LLC, File No. SAT-MOD-20101118-00239
Dear Ms. Dortch:
I am writing to you on behalf of The Coalition of Geospatial Organizations (COGO), a coalition of 15 national professional societies, trade associations, and membership organizations in the geospatial field, representing more than 35,000 individual producers and users of geospatial data and technology.
The stakeholder groups that make up COGO speak with one voice wherever possible on geospatial data and policy issues. COGO only takes public policy positions with a unanimous vote of its member organizations. In this regard, COGO seeks to express its urgent and critical concern regarding the issues under consideration by the Commission in the referenced proceeding.
The members of COGO’s organizations rely very heavily on high-precision Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver equipment to carry out their missions. The precise data obtained through the use of advanced GPS receiver equipment has virtually revolutionized their ability to collect and process geospatial data in a manner not possible without access to uninterrupted GPS signals. As a consequence, these members have developed and continue to innovate applications that affect virtually every sector of our economy. COGO and its member organizations are therefore very concerned that the introduction of high-power, high-density terrestrial-only broadband transmitters in the spectrum adjacent to the Radionavigation Satellite Service operating in the 1559 – 1610 MHz frequency band will seriously interfere with reception of GPS signals operating in this band. Any level of possible interference will affect the ability to collect sufficiently robust GPS signals to achieve the critical task of geospatial data collection. Our concern is not simply with interference to existing applications, but the very possible impact this interference could have on our members’ ability to develop future advanced applications.
COGO is aware that LightSquared has been required to submit a report on June 15, 2011 detailing the results of a Commission-mandated study of the potential for LightSquared terrestrial-only broadband transmitters to desensitize GPS receivers. COGO looks forward to reviewing the report and providing the Commission with its views on the results reported in the study. COGO supports the Administration’s goal of increasing access to mobile broadband which also benefits our members. However, increasing broadband access at the expense of
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch June 15, 2011 Page -2-
interfering with GPS signals portends a negative outcome for the Nation and is not a solution that advances the public interest. GPS is a proven national information utility that supports national security, homeland security, public safety and a broad range of commercial applications.
COGO respectfully requests that the Commission not provide any further approvals for LightSquared’s planned deployment of high-density, high-power terrestrial-only broadband transmitters in the band adjacent to the spectrum where GPS operates until the issue of interference to GPS is fully understood and appropriate measures are proven to be workable to avoid such interference. These measures must ensure sustainment of the national GPS utility and proven positioning and navigation information, as well as continuing innovation that benefits the Nation and that delivers the operational performance on which our COGO organizations and their members depend.
Respectfully submitted,
Geney Terry, GISP, MGIS
2011 COGO Chair
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM)
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS)
Association of American Geographers (AAG)
Cartography and Geographic Information Society (CaGIS)
Geographic Information Systems Certification Institute (GISCI)
International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO)
Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS)
National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC)
United States Geospatial Intelligence Foundation (USGIF)
University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS)
Urban Regional Information Systems Association (URISA)
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

