GPS, Maps, and cameras ILLEGAL

[Trail Bandit]

In case you have missed the latest work by your Representatives in Concord,
HB 514 passed without as much as a squeak from the hikers of this state.
Note: I would have more than squeaked if I had heard about this.
If you read this bill you will note that it will be illegal to take photos on private land of sewage being dumped into a stream. Any GPS tracks you may have collected can no longer be shared with friends. Maps of any kind showing features on private land will be illegal. In addition any photos you may have taken in the past or any GPS tracks collected on private land will be illegal.
This may remind some of you about the noise made about the map of the Ossipee Mountains.
If you think this is a good law, do nothing. If you think there are perhaps some negative aspects to it, contact your State Senator.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Wow! Hopefully your post will spark some attention from the hiker community. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention.

 

[David Metsky]

Here is the text of the bill - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0514.html

It's not clear that GPS or cameras would be considered a problem under the "data gathering" clause in the bill. Unless you plan on publishing a map, it certainly wouldn't be illegal to make one for your own purposes.

While I'm not sure of all the ramifications of this bill, your explanation of the bill is IMO not an accurate representation. There are some concerns, and it's worthy of discussion. NH's "Live free or Die" attitude can cut both ways.

 

[Jason Berard]

full text of bill, as passed (I think):
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/544998

EDIT: oops. Dave got there fist.

 

[RoySwkr]

oops, I'm 3rd http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0514.html

and here is the previous note about it
http://vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43420

 

[MichaelJ]

Some aspects of this bill are very sneaky. For example:

"No state or municipal agency, board, or commission, or other governmental entity shall use data from abutting land as a factor in the denial of any permit or approval." However, "Federal, state, or local officials conducting inspections related to permits, licenses, or certifications applied for by the property owner" are an exception to the requirements of this bill. They have to give notice but do not need permission to enter the land proper.

What does that mean? For example, if you as an abutter go to a licensing hearing or zoning board of appeals, that the board is instructed to ignore any "data" gathered from your property? Does that mean that if I see my neighbor doing something illegally I cannot use a photograph from my yard in my challenge?

HOWEVER ... reading the Remedies, there is no remedy prescribed for an individual, only for public officials, governmental bodies, etc. In other words, my admittedly inexperienced reading of this law is that the government (local or state) can get in trouble for violating it, but an individual member of the public can't (except for existing trespassing laws, of course). Any lawyers want to comment?

 

[psmart]

Read carefully

Lets not read this too broadly. Although the restrictions seem to apply to everyone, the "remedies" section only refers to actions by a "public body or public agency or officer, employee, or other official thereof."

MJ beat me to it!

 

[Amicus]

Lets not read this too broadly. Although the restrictions seem to apply to everyone, the "remedies" section only refers to actions by a "public body or public agency or officer, employee, or other official thereof."

MJ beat me to it!

I hope an NH lawyer weighs in on this, but until one does, I would note that the presence of special remedies in a bill that illegalizes certain conduct, such as the provisions in this one aimed at public officials, is unlikely to mean that there are no general remedies. Somewhere in the large body of NH Statutes, there are likely to be general remedial provisions with respect to violations of law, which miight include fines, jail, injunctive relief and I don't know what else.

 

[JacobH]

Thread drift, but I recently read your essay "My take on the Ossipee Mountains" and I have to say, no apology needed! It was enlightening.

As for this bill, something definitely seems fishy. Presented by Sen. Barnes Jr. of Dist 17 (Raymond). Is something going on in the Pawtuckaway area that this bill could be a response to?

The way it is worded seems to be directed at public officials, but I believe it could be interpreted other ways as well. Could it be a response to the Northern Pass project, similar to an Eminent Domain law? Although, surveying, municipal officials, emergency responders, even officials who notify the landowner of the action, etc. are exempted...

Chap 7-C:1 clearly states "no person shall enter private property to gather data about the property". I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me like this would supersede all of the parties mentioned in the remedies section, not the other way around. Why would a bill be passed that applies only to "public bodies" and "government officials" with regards to land surveying? Something here does not make sense.

Edit: Pretty much what Amicus said, even though there are remedies listed for these specific parties does not necessarily mean a general remedy (trespassing?) is not applicable. Right?

 

[Will]

It will be illegal to take photos on private land of sewage being dumped into a stream. Any GPS tracks you may have collected can no longer be shared with friends. Maps of any kind showing features on private land will be illegal. In addition any photos you may have taken in the past or any GPS tracks collected on private land will be illegal.

It is possible that English is not the primary language of the bill's authors and that the bill does not really mean what it says it means.

Perhaps photos, GPS tracks, and mapped features will turn out not to be data. Or perhaps "person" in 7c1-1 means something other than person. Bad person maybe, or environmental type person, and not hiker type of person.

 

[Tom Rankin]

There are just too many problems with this!

Maps of any kind showing features on private land will be illegal.

Google?

any photos you may have taken in the past will be illegal.

So pictures of weddings at the Mt. Washington Hotel are now being destroyed by conscientious professional photographers?

or any GPS tracks collected on private land will be illegal.

Is NH going to come and arrest people who live in other states?

It must be like Will said...

 

[Will]

Google?

Doesn't apply, since Google didn't enter the property to gather that data. Google is safe from prosecution by New Hampshire!

So pictures of weddings at the Mt. Washington Hotel are now being destroyed by conscientious professional photographers?

If the data about the property is incidental background and not the purpose, I think the photograph is OK. But if a wedding photographer supplied those pictures to, say, a liquor board to show violations, the photograph would be illegal.

Is NH going to come and arrest people who live in other states?

One of the real fascinating things about this ... thing ... is that, as pointed out by a couple of others, the data gathering activity itself is illegal for everybody, but the specific penalties are applicable only against public entities or employees (though there is one sentence in the penalty section where "person" is again used without reference to such a public entity). Also as pointed out, with the activity itself having been defined as illegal in this act, there are other existing statutes whereby penalties could be applied.

 

[Trail Bandit]

As was once said: It all depends on what the meaning of is is.

 

[Will]

As was once said: It all depends on what the meaning of is is.

I live in an extended household of lawyers, but nobody's home right now. The question I have for tonight is, if a landowner and a friendly cop and prosecutor tried to nail you with this law, and you brought an English professor in as an expert witness to prove, semantically and by the logic of language the act was total nonsense, is that a defense?

 

[MichaelJ]

But if a wedding photographer supplied those pictures to, say, a liquor board to show violations, the photograph would be illegal.

No, the photograph would not be illegal. Keep in mind *also* that if it's openly visible from public property, like from a road, you can photograph it. There is extensive precedent in this matter and I do not believe any state law could overrule that. At a wedding, you are an allowed/invited individual at the property, photograph whatever you want. Your photographs themselves are not illegal. It's what you do with them that's limited (just like the requirement to get model releases for certain photo uses).

But regardless, the law in question only states that a land board could not use said photograph (if a photograph is data) as evidence in a decision. Which is quite asinine, as it means that if someone puts up a tower and then goes for a permit to make it taller, technically a photo of that tower from someone else's land (also known as "the view") cannot be taken into account in the permitting process.

One very large question here: what about private property that is open to the public by easement or by posted sign? If it's private property but I, as a member of the public, have a deeded right to be on the property, well ... that's going to be the kind of thing that ends up in court to decide (and make lawyers wealthier in the process).

 

[peakbagger]

A 400 member NH house paid by law $100 per session does not make for a rational system of vetting of new laws. I expect if you dig around in the many bills that have been filed over the years there are probably a more than few that dont make sense. Generally laws like this go away quickly during house senate conference committee sessions. They still need to be watched and its worth a note to your local senator but I wouldnt get stressed about it yet.

One of our local reps had the proverbial "a few lose screws" yet many voted him in year after year. No doubt if someone asked him to repeal the law of gravity, he would have signed up for it if it got him recognition.

 

[RoySwkr]

you brought an English professor in as an expert witness to prove, semantically and by the logic of language the act was total nonsense, is that a defense?

HS English teacher Richard Lederer who wrote a column on language was once called as an expert witness on a referendum in Maine

But the NH Supreme Court would allow a gibberish law, and issue a non-sensical interpretation [but I can't say which one they did without interjecting politics here]

 

[Billy]

In case you have missed the latest work by your Representatives in Concord,
HB 514 passed without as much as a squeak from the hikers of this state.
Note: I would have more than squeaked if I had heard about this.
If you read this bill you will note that it will be illegal to take photos on private land of sewage being dumped into a stream. Any GPS tracks you may have collected can no longer be shared with friends. Maps of any kind showing features on private land will be illegal. In addition any photos you may have taken in the past or any GPS tracks collected on private land will be illegal.
This may remind some of you about the noise made about the map of the Ossipee Mountains.
If you think this is a good law, do nothing. If you think there are perhaps some negative aspects to it, contact your State Senator.

I just read the bill, and I'm at a loss as to why this bill is so disturbing to people. Full disclosure: I live in Rhode Island, where there is no political corruption and all the members of the RI General Assembly are the salt of the earth. So, I'm not informed about the inner workings of NH lawmakers, who wrote the bill, and what the underlying motivation might be. But just as an out-of-state layman, after reading the bill (and your post), I'm left with this question: Why does the prospect of not being able to enter another citizen's private property without permission to gather data about that property cause you such distress?

 

[spencer]

It is possible that English is not the primary language of the bill's authors and that the bill does not really mean what it says it means.

Maybe the problem was that the primary language of the reader was not English

I'm not even a crazy landowner rights kind of guy and this doesn't seem nearly as over-reaching as implied in this thread.

 

[Trail Bandit]

The bill does not seem all that bad a deal on the surface. If you look a little closer it becomes apparent that this is a law that is being passed to protect big corporate landowners that don't want anyone to know what is being done "out there". They have the funds, connections, and the lawyers to take this sort of issue to court forever. Ok, I may be more sensitive than most of you but I have probably had more experience. Read the second paragraph closely:

" No information gathered by entering private property without permission or a lawfully issued warrant shall be recorded, made public, or used for studies or grants, including information gathered without property owner permission prior to enactment of this section."

This says that you cannot hike in the Belknap Mountains and post a trip report on your hike. Ok, that may be stretching it a bit but if you were to post a GPS track of your hike, made with any of the available mapping programs, along with a photo or two of what a mess the loggers out there have made in with your trip report, you are clearly guilty.
This is one of those bad laws that sits out there until some company wants to silence a critic.
It does not limit the law to government agencies and leaves the punishment to other than government agencies open and unlimited.