Privacy laws will only get more restrictive for this business. But to blanket ban aerial photography could, I suspect, also bring into question all forms of photography from public spaces. I can't see any real principle difference around privacy between an aerial photo and one taken at street level (or 9ft as with Google street view). And Google is getting challenged in many jurisdictions on this. It seems that one of their methods of dealing with this is for people to elect to be 'blurred' directly with Google. But what does one do? Register a ban with tens or hundreds of individual orgs to 'blur' or low res ones property? So I can now see how a blanket ban proposal could get up with individuals possibly electing to 'un-blur' their property. Interesting issues.
I'm also sure people like Murdock, his tabloids and 1000+s paparazzi may also have a stake keeping privacy laws as loose as possible for as long as possible. So we know we'll get the benefit of his 'fight' fund.
But Govt/councils are currently, I understand, NEA's largest customer base so NEA wouldn't be precluded from bidding into the New Hampshire mkt.
It would be interesting to hear SC's take on dealing with expanding privacy laws.
Cheers.
NEA Price at posting:
25.5¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
