Why then is the opposite true? Just playing devils advocate. Do you see the lopsidedness between the two? They [the 'rights'] don't extend infinitely into space. okay, fair enough. Why does theirs extend all the way to the ground? Exceptions / loopholes could be made to accommodate non-visually penetrable mediums and means, like weather technology. And if the government really wanted to spy on their own (as if), they could just say it was a weather balloon that had the legal clearance. if it ever crashed, I mean. point is, there's lots of language that could be defined in order to allow spying, allow air traffic, but not allow a telescope, nay-- microscope, effectively--of studying us down here on earth. while naked. (us, I mean, maybe them, too). the government is just going to do whatever the hell it wants anyway, just put that in the legal work, gov: do as you will. problem solved

question: can a spy telescope, when it comes to apertures, lenses, focal point and scale, but most importantly perhaps, intent, be considered a microscope depending on which way its pointing? it seems to me that given the size of earth, the size of humans in realtion to that, how is it any different than monitoring a bacterial colony Wirth a microscope? functionally. its not different, right? or perhaps its more nuanced than functionally, but surely its closer to being a microscope, than a "telescope"?

street maps could definitely still exist. I saw a project here on hn that showed a land surveying satellite that was able to track land parcels and shade them accordingly using AI. and, if they can blur faces out I know they can blur rooftops and naked bums.