Slashdot Log In
US Set to Use Spy Satellites on US Citizens
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Feb 13, 2008 08:13 PM
from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
duerra writes "A plan to use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law-enforcement missions is moving forward after being delayed for months because of privacy and civil liberties concerns. The plan is in the final stage of completion, according to a department official who requested anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about it. While some internal agencies have had access to spy satellite imagery for purposes such as assisting after a natural disaster, this would be the first time law-enforcement would be able to obtain a warrant and request access to satellite imagery."
Related Stories
[+]
DHS To Kill Domestic Satellite Spying Program 150 comments
mcgrew writes "The Bush administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens. This morning the AP reports that new DHS head Janet Napolitano has axed those plans. 'The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes. The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns. The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request, according to Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department's classified intelligence budget.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oblig. 1984 in the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Every major city & town is already 90% covered by CCTV. You can't walk from one side of the street to the other without appearing on a CCTV system.
We're already covered.. Say cheese
Parent
Re:Oblig. 1984 in the UK (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oblig. 1984 in the UK (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If only... (Score:5, Funny)
Starting now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, not exactly the first time. (Score:3, Interesting)
FEMA MAC (Score:5, Interesting)
Get it right. The "internal agencies" is FEMA. See:
http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/ [fema.gov]
The GIS specialists don't have direct access to classified data but instead are given polygons of requested data which is based on those satellite images. Only the military, NSA, Other Security Agency has access to the output of the sats directly.
War on America (Score:5, Interesting)
And how long will this language remain? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the way things have been going, I'm surprised they're still even pretending to care about due process. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with law enforcement gaining access to spy satellite photography as long as they can only get it after supplying evidence to establish probable cause that a specific person committed a specific crime in a specific time and place. But I'm very concerned that little requirement is going to fall by the wayside and they'll be able to spy on citizens waiting for anybody to slip up.
Slippery slope indeed . . .
Re:And how long will this language remain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'm not thrilled by it, but the satellites are already there and we frequently send new ones up. It's potentially a privacy-destroying technology, but the bitch of it is that (to steal a bit from Arthur C. Clarke) nature doesn't keep secrets. You can't uninvent anything. We just have to learn to live with it.
Besides, does it really matter if it's law enforcement going after satellite imagery, or law enforcement subpoenaing private security cameras (almost as omnipresent in densely populated areas)?
Whether the cameras are in someone's pocket, mounted on a building, or flying overhead on a satellite, the fact remains we've got cameras EVERYWHERE. We're not getting rid of them any time soon, so the only thing I think we can really do is make sure the rules are *very* strict for when law enforcement can get their grubby little hands on them.
Parent
How about actually reading what it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the level of comments to this article so far, I'm guessing that is not the case.
This is part of the spirit of the mandate of the sweeping Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which prioritizes information sharing, including between federal, state, and local entities, and enabling state/local/tribal governments to leverage federal intelligence resources across the spectrum.
Two movies come to mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Many things have become true, or look like they'll become true after 911.
What about Google Earth, you OK with that too? (Score:5, Interesting)
For that, we volunteer all kinds of information, because it's not The Man(tm).
At least the government is still trying to convince detractors of this program that they'll ask for warrants and whatnot; Google does it with impunity, daily, and you think it's cool!
Wake up, people. Be consistent in your positions. If you're going to whine about how The Man(tm) is trying to make 1984 look like child's play, then complain about Google basically doing the same exact thing, with *YOUR* help (but in a much cooler way).
Re:What about Google Earth, you OK with that too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Slashdot users are immune... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
And yet, the ISS gets a budget cut... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And yet, the ISS gets a budget cut... (Score:4, Insightful)
A plan to use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law-enforcement missions is moving forward after being delayed for months because of privacy and civil liberties concerns. So, what happened to those "privacy and civil liberties concerns"? Did they just go away? As usual, the Bush Administration sees civil liberties as damage and routes around them.
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:5, Insightful)
Just be thankful you are not in an evil totalitarian regime, like the UK.
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is, we are still clinging to our 2nd amendment - so at least we still have armed revolt as an option. The UK doesn't even have that.
Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.
=Smidge=
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:5, Funny)
Or Canadian.
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:4, Insightful)
To me it seems as if the "at least we still have armed revolt as an option" is the most effective means of keeping people in the US quiet until they find themselves in a facist policestate and it's too late.
Of course, they could then have their armed revolution against a government equipped with all the best technology of oppression but it would be pointless. You will have no means of communication left, the enemy will know all your whereabouts, your thoughts and will be able to proactively put you in jail, torture you, kill you.
Maybe it would make more sense to avoid the fascist policestate in advance.
Firearms are giving you a sense of false security.
The right to own firearms comes from a time when firearms was to most effective means of oppression a government could have. So to have an equilibrium of power this amandmend exists.
However, today you would need the right to have spy satellites, secret surveillance, secret rendition etc. pp.
So your guns give you no safety at all.
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Nice distraction (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep seeing this ludicrous "we can take up arms!" justification for having no control of guns in the United States. You do realize that for any practical purposes, unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?
If you don't believe me, ask some of the guys who had a hell of a lot more guns that you probably do and decided to take up arms against the government. Ask David Koresh. Oh, that's right, you can't, because he's dead. Ask Timothy McVeigh. Whoops, he's dead, too. Ask Eric Rudolph. Whoa, you actually can, because he's not dead yet, he's rotting in a jail cell in Colorado!
Anyone who threatens to take up arms against the government is either playing on irrational emotions or an idiot, and they're more dangerous to society than helpful to it. You would have thought that people would have learned more from Dr. Martin Luther King, but I guess he was just some kind of weird ineffectual idealist, right?
When it comes to guns, I'm infinitely more concerned about well-meaning stupid people who think they're responsible gun owners than our government, because in the U.S., the government already own us, lock, stock, and barrel. (Pun slightly intended.) No, it's not a good thing, and I don't particularly like the situation, but it's the way it is, and gun control didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Stupid voters constantly giving the government too much power and taking away our civil liberties is what got us in this situation.
If you really want to make a change for the better, then quitcherbitchin' with all this gun talk, get off your ass, and either run for office or support someone running for office who will do a better job of protecting our privacy and civil liberties. Because when you rationalize wanting to own dangerous weapons with the excuse that you might want or need to take up arms against the government someday, you're not coming off as a patriot, you're coming off as a bloodthirsty idiot.
Parent
Re:Nice distraction (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraqi insurgents don't have nuclear weapons and I'd say they're doing relatively well against us. They cost us billions of dollars every day, and thousands of lives each year. Nukes make a country unlivable, the radioactive decay would make this land worthless for years to come, the government wouldn't do that... Nuke where the most fighting would take place, right? So New York? Washington, DC? The entire eastern seaboard? Nuke their own ports and sub bases? Nuke their weapons caches? Nuke their capitol city?! If you want to see what urban combat against clandestine rebels who oppose the acting government would be like, hit up Iraq; I'm sure the Army can make room for you.
Sure it seems impossible for full scale chaos in America, but say there's a shortage on oil, and subsequently food, in the near future. How impossible is it then?
This has nothing to do with gun rights, by the way. My point is just, no one needs guns to kill people (see: IEDs a la Iraq) and it's quite naive to think our government can't be fought simply because of the tools they built in an arms race with Russians for over 40 years. In guerrilla warfare through city streets, masked by civilians, fighting an enemy who has lived their entire life within the confines a a few square miles, they're all sitting ducks. Read the news sometime! Spy satellites are simply a bit of insurance, it will help notice patterns, like how they find weapons caches in Iraq and then monitor them via satellite before striking it. Make no mistake that they put spy satellites up with the intent of searching for their... ENEMIES!
You are correct about the rationale, you certainly wouldn't want the government to know you own semi automatic weapons if you intend on fighting that government WITH those weapons. Only insecure fools trying to compensate for shortcomings would justify their gun like that, the type of person who wouldn't have the nardules to even use it in that situation.
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:4, Insightful)
in 1998, Obama stated that he would Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. that includes about half the shotguns, more than half of the pistols, and a fairly good chunk of the rifles in the U.S. There are also some quotes about putting in "thousands" of intelligence assets at the state & local level.
And if it came to an armed revolt, it would be like the US Army vs Iraq... no not Iraq... Iraq had tanks, rocket launchers, fighter planes, SAM installations, a proper disciplined armed forces each armed and trained with using automatic weapons, etc, etc, etc. And they couldn't hold off the US at all. What do you think some angry rabble with rifles and pistols is going to accomplish in a pitched battle?
Squat. Jack Squat.
If it ever comes to violent revolt, whether or not we're legally allowed to bear arms prior to the revolt is utterly irrelevant. We will immediately be reduced to guerrilla or terrorist tactics. We will be using home made explosives, and importing rockets, pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, grendades and ammo from black market arms dealers. We won't be much different than the Iraqi's current 'insurgents', and fighting for much the same reason... to take our own country back.
The only edge we'll have over the iraqis is that -hopefully- our own army will have a slightly harder time killing fellow americans. But if history has taught us anything that shouldn't be a much a deterrent as one would think it should be.
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you actually think the United States has "won" in Iraq? How many U.S. soldiers have been killed and maimed since the Iraqi army was defeated and the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing? How much is the U.S. spending day after day to maintain a troop presence and conduct operations in the country? The thing that history has taught us is that an insurgency will eventually break the will of the invader.
Parent
Worked for the Vietnamese, Iraqies, Mogadishu... (Score:4, Insightful)
>armor piercing rounds, gas, and tanks. They train for armed resistance and usually shoot to
>kill if there is even the suspicion of a weapon (or a piece of tinfoil). The pigs are a lot
>more polite on this side of the Atlantic.
I am one of those who strongly believes the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was primarily to arm the citizenry so that they could revolt against tyranny if necessary.
I am always amazed by people who say, "The common people could never rise in armed revolt against a modern military force."
There are so many reasons why this is clearly untrue.
First of all, it has been demonstrated historically that it is indeed possible for numerically and technologically inferior forces to force the withdrawal of superior forces. Four relatively modern scenarios that come to mind are Vietnam, Mogadishu, Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, and probably Iraq. Remember, for an insurgency to be effective it does not have to win battles with military victories. It merely has to sap enough resources until the enemy finds it not worth fighting.
Second of all, domestic insurrections have another "positive" in their favor - they are highly disruptive to the local economy. Since it is the tax revenue that feeds the government that will be resisted, any disruption of tax revenue erodes the power of the tyrannical government, and probably gets their attention more readily that the loss of troops and material. I'm sure congress people get upset over troop losses. I bet they get more upset over losses in tax revenue. We saw from the DC sniper case that 2 guys shooting out of the keyhole in the trunk of a car caused a huge financial impact over a wide area because people stopped going outside to go shopping. Imagine the economic disruption caused by 10,000 insurgents.
Third of all, if things deteriorated to the point that it motivated a significant portion of the population to engage in a rebellion, it is likely that not all troops would stay in step with the federal government.
To me, the biggest problem with the safeguard of the 2nd Amendment is not how effective will average citizens be as resistance fighters. To me the biggest problem is will average citizens be too apathetic to ever stand up and rise in rebellion should it be warranted.
Parent
Back on the reality layer (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:W00t. 1st post (Score:5, Interesting)
A warrant might give some imagery weenie the legal go ahead to distribute specific files, but that doesn't mean the pictures are only taken when a warrant is present. Over the years 'real time' has expanded to include 'sifting' through huge amounts of data storage to pick out not only a location of interest, but also a time of interest.
If the warrant doesn't include a time frame, then you can bet your backside it will be assumed to mean an unlimited capacity to view any imagery for the location of interest until the warrant expires.
Depending upon the acquisition method and storage, you might only have a few days of historical info, or you might have years.
Ex 3 letter agency drone typing.
Parent
Re:Plain view? (Score:4, Informative)
The article only mentions it briefly, but it seems to be subject to the same plain-view laws as helicopters and airplanes.
Parent
Re:It's of no consequence (Score:5, Insightful)
We will get fooled again.
If a major political party supports a candidate, you can be sure they've checked with their masters before allowing them to become viable.
Parent
Re:It's of no consequence (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow....all hail the Second Coming. Messiah Obama. He will magically rescue us from all our ills...
Look, I love the guy, and he is heads above anyone else in this race. But don't think for a second that he's going to represent some wholesale shift in government policies. He'll be corrupted and compromised, at least to some extent, by the realities of D.C. culture and by those who wield the real power. (Hint: it's not in the White House. Think big bureaucracies with three initials. Not to mention nine people in ugly black robes.) Once power is obtained, those who yield it tend to be quite reluctant to let go of it.
Will we be better off under an Obama presidency? Hell yes, no doubt. Will all government corruption and Constitution-gutting cease? When pigs fly. It's always about choosing the lesser of the evils.
Parent
Re:It's of no consequence (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is, if he wins the nomination, someone will make an assassination attempt just prior to the November election. There's just too many groups out there to whom Obama would be a threat, both philosophically and economically, and not just the neocons either.
Considering that Obama has been compared to JFK, and the groundswell of excitement for his campaign (especially among young folks) akin to that of RFK, and with his being African-American like MLK....well, yes, I worry about the same thing happening. As Mark Twain once said: "History does not repeat itself. But it does rhyme."
Parent
Re:It's of no consequence (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me an executive and a bloc of legislators who would willingly relinquish powers. A few examples notwithstanding, these sorts of people don't make it into government. Not here and now, anyway. The principles embodied in our primary charters, those from the Enlightenment, are res non gratae to modern politics. If acknowledged at all, they are given lip service. The judiciary upholds the principles sometimes; but without a constructive force creating new law to rebuild them, all we have is case law, which is a crapshoot.
Parent
Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. (Score:5, Interesting)
First, let me thank you for your service to our country. I am sure that you folks "in the trenches" are hard-working, honest individuals, and as patriotic as any one of us could hope to be. With that said, I urge you not to take it personally when I say: "WE DON'T WANT YOUR HELP."
There are bad things in the world. I recognize that, and I am glad to hear that there are people like you working to keep me safe from those things. Surly you must realize, however, that no matter what you and the rest of our government do, some element of danger will still exist... but in the process, we are being stripped of the very freedoms that we as Americans used to hold absolutely sacred.
Look at it like this: I have an 18-month-old son. My wife and I made sure when he started crawling that we had those safety plugs in floor-level outlets, we put some cabinet locks on the cupboards with the dangerous substances, and we put gates across the stairwells. We did these things because there are real dangers around our house that we can very easily mitigate. Of course, there are also dangers that are harder to deal with -- for example, he could fall off the sofa (and has). Does this mean we should get rid of all the furniture, because he could fall off? Maybe we should just take the furniture out of his room, and keep him in there 23 hours out of the day. Perhaps some form of restraints?
Obviously, I can't make the world perfectly safe for my son. My job as a parent, then, is to try to strike that balance between keeping him reasonably safe and giving him the freedom to learn and grow. Similarly, it's the job of the government to keep myself and the rest of the American citizenry reasonably safe, while still giving us the freedoms we value so much.
This administration, in my and many others' minds, has crossed far past that balance point. The safety this sort of program would grant is certainly a good thing, but the cost is just too high. Thanks, but no thanks.
Parent
Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if you're truly Intel, someone pretending to be, or just on crack. The point is that "Trust us, we know what we're doing" is not the proper response to "what the hell do you think you're doing?" Your stance that we cannot know what the Intelligence community is doing is just as irrelevant to the problem. The set of *possible* uses (as opposed to the set of actual uses) is very well known, and the problem is around the potential for abuse. Even a technology's potential for abuse is not necessarily a problem, if the users and wielders of the technology are known to abide by accepted laws and standards. The problem really is in the last few years, it has been shown that there are enough shitbags in the Intelligence community and those using its reports that these technologies are guaranteed to be abused.
I'll be damned if I consent to drag-net type intelligence gathering on citizens that are supposed to be presumed innocent.
Parent
Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. (Score:4, Interesting)
Intel collection platforms are no secret, either in purpose or in functionality. The information is readily available to anyone attentive enough to cut through the crap. Google has it all. One thing I learned over the years is that individuals know what they are doing, management struggle to get another rung up the ladder and will do anything to look better than you, and the little boys club at the top have their politics. You know where these leaks come from? If you are a low level nobody then you go to jail, middle level managers get sent off to some red neck field site in the desert where they can't screw anything up much worse than it already is. So who does that leave you with?
If you are a creature of common sense and dispense with the patriotic blindness for a minute, you'll see that absolutely nothing stays secret. Nothing.
This is just plain old erosion of rights instigated by some fall guy in the executive branch who was probably just scratching someone elses itch.
Parent
Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. (Score:4, Interesting)
Drop the "brotherhood" attitude and start treating us regular people like we deserve your respect and we'll let you do more. As long as law enforcement or intelligence allows their own to commit even the smallest crimes against the citizenry without jumping all over them, you are not wanted. You are here to protect me, not to protect each other. Show me you are on my side by putting the corrupt 1% of you in jail and I'll change my mind.
I don't want you. I don't want your help. I don't like you.
BTW, you are not my parents, you are my security guards. You have been stealing from my fridge and taking the car for joy rides (not all of you, but the food is gone and there is a dent in the fender). Please, don't be surprised when you don't get a Christmas card.
Parent
Misquoting Ben Franklin... (Score:5, Informative)
Here it is: [franklinpapers.org]
Franklin is referring to bearing arms as an essential liberty. And he says that those who give up that essential liberty has only himself to blame for getting victimized by raiding parties.
Parent
Re:They've won. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to be deceived if you are ignorant, arrogant, complacent, and passive. Those of us who saw the US moving down this path right from the start (using 2007.09.11 as the start, because that seems to be when the massive powergrab started, though the symptoms where there long before) were derided as paranoid, "tin-foil hatters". We were told, "This is America. Stuff like that can never happen here." We were told to "Calm down. It will never get that bad."
You know what? The US Constitution IS just a goddamn piece of paper. You know why? Because it is a contract from the people to the Government telling the government exactly what it can and cannot do. It's up to the people to enforce that, and when they don't, then it stops having any value greater than the paper it is written on. Your actions, or lack there-of, speak for you, and what they are saying is you don't care that this is happening.
You know what the US reminds me of? In the old cartoons, when a character ran off the cliff, he didn't start falling until he looked down and noticed that it was too late. That's where America seems to be. I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly don't see enough people caring to actually set things right.
I'm glad I left.
/cue the "good riddance" comments
Parent
Re:They've won. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I think you are being a bit too pessimistic. I was around in the 70's when serious commentators were asking if the Republican party was in its death throes. In the previous 30 years it had elected only 2 presidents and never controlled congress. Huge social strides were being made, and the Left seemed in total control. Wiser people argued that these things run in cycles, and that the Right would eventually come back.
Boy did they. I never lost faith that things would eventually swing back to Liberalism, but I did fear that it might not happen in my lifetime.
So now what has happened, almost 30 years later (on cue)? Bush and merry band have, through herculean efforts, pushed the pendulum as far to the right as they can shove it. But it is clear to anyone looking that they have nearly hit the stops. The American people are now starting to awaken and take a good look at what is going on, and they don't like it one bit. The pendulum is about to swing back with a vengence, and woe betide those in its way.
I could of course be wrong about this, but if I am I'm about the wrongest on anything that I have been in my entire life. The signs are all around. The last election 2006 was all set to be a good one for Republicans. Nearly all the vulnerable Congressional seats were Democratic held. Instead, they got waxed. They didn't just loose a bit more than they won, they *everything* that was competitive, and some that weren't supposed to be. *This* is the election where the vulnerable Republican seats were up, and if anything the mood in the electorate for them is worse now than it was in 2006. Twenty Nine Reps so far have announced that they aren't even going to try. Party identification is swinging Democrats' way. Young voters (the electorate of the future) are turning out to be overwhelmingly Democrat. The Rep's only hope for the future, our rapidly growing Hispanic population, they have spent the last 2 years insulting (with no signs of stopping). The count of Democrats voting in the primaries is shattering records. I'm not talking by 5 or 10%, but in some cases 300%! Nearly every state has had more voters in the Democratic primary than the Republican, even though both are contested and on the same day. In Georga (a solid Republican state since '76), *two* different Democrats got more votes than the entire Republician slate!
Still not impressed? The Democrats are actually raising more money. They have been since 2006. I always thought that was physically impossible. Even in the 70's when things were good, we had the people, they had the money. That's just the way things work. Well, apparently not anymore.
Now I'm normally the most pessimistic guy you can meet, but I just don't see how the Reps pull this one out. So personally, I'm sad for you that you left. Even if you aren't of the Left == good, Right == bad mindset that I am, its clear that something major is going on. I have never in my life seen anything like this. The closest equivalent was the mood around Regan's election back in '80. For better or worse, change is comming. This is a very exciting time.
Parent
Re:1984 one giant step closer... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like the only option is to leave... yeah... where they require a passport for you to cross the canadian border on foot. Where a passport takes months to get. Where even if I go, I pretty much can't take my most valuables (AKA my computer), because they will likely look all through it or even take it.
Seriosly. We are already too far gone. Nothing can be done.
Parent
Re:1984 one giant step closer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:1984 one giant step closer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not every colonist in 1776 supported the Revolution, but enough people did to change history. Can we find enough people with strength of heart, character, and purpose like that today?
I think it's time to stop talking and asking questions, and to start making some powerful people sleep a little less well at night.
Parent