Slashdot Log In
Homeland Security's Space-Based Spying Goes Live
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Oct 08, 2008 07:43 PM
from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
BountyX writes "While America's attention has shifted to the economic meltdown and the presidential race between corporate favorites John McCain and Barack Obama, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Applications Office (NAO) 'will proceed with the first phase of a controversial satellite-surveillance program, even though an independent review found the department hasn't yet ensured the program will comply with privacy laws.' NAO will coordinate how domestic law enforcement and 'disaster relief' agencies such as FEMA use satellite imagery intelligence (IMINT) generated by US spy satellites. Based on available evidence, hard to come by since these programs are classified 'above top secret,' the technological power of these military assets are truly terrifying."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Sales of golf umbrellas and large-brimmed sombreros went through the roof.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
"Sales of golf umbrellas and large-brimmed sombreros went through the roof."
Fight back, sunbathe naked.
The sight of thousands of Slashdotters au natural displayed in high resolution should drive off (most) of the human imagery interpreters.
Parent
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
above top secret? (Score:4, Interesting)
that doesn't sound like it's legal. Does DHS have the legal authority to spy on American citizens going about their business? Should it?
This system sounds like big brother is finally coming online and when you run a red light, the satellite will track you home since only terrorists run red lights!!!!111
Re:above top secret? (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be under the impression that the government cares about what is "legal".
You haven't learned anything in the last... 100 years?
Just look at (what is left) of the Constitution.
Parent
Re:above top secret? (Score:4, Funny)
Just look at (what is left) of the Constitution.
Obama will save us! Hope and change!
Parent
Re:above top secret? (Score:5, Funny)
Then limit your lawbreaking to only cloudy days.
Parent
Re:above top secret? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Above top secret" doesn't make any sense. This is classified at "top secret" with talent/keyhole code words.
Re:above top secret? (Score:4, Informative)
Check out this wikipedia page on caveats relating to classified information [wikipedia.org]. That heading and the next three mini-headings pertain to caveats.
As for the parent, I don't know what "talent" is, but "keyhole" is a kind of imagery spy satellite. I'll bet "talent" is a SIGINT spy satellite, but I'm not going to look it up right now.
Parent
Re:above top secret? (Score:4, Informative)
As for the parent, I don't know what "talent" is, but "keyhole" is a kind of imagery spy satellite. I'll bet "talent" is a SIGINT spy satellite, but I'm not going to look it up right now. ;)
TOP SECRET-SCI/TK clearance (TK = Talent-Keyhole) is the specific clearance for classified satellite imagery. I don't know nuthin' 'bout that. ;)
Parent
Re:Boon to law-enforcement (Score:5, Funny)
That's my argument for going out naked. I try to explain to the cops that this way they can see I'm not carrying drugs. Thus far my success rate is roughly fail.
Parent
Why haven't we heard of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why haven't we heard of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of their rationalizations is that if you have widespread secret spying on your population, but if individuals don't know/can't be told they are being spied on, then there is nothing for the individual to complain about.
Of course, say, your boss or your bank gets an NSA letter requesting all the information they have about you (but they can't tell you they are doing this), you may just happen to find yourself the first to be laid off if there is some kind of economic downturn (if they wait that long), and you may find getting a loan slightly more difficult (as in, impossible), but it most definitely won't be because of these secretive spy programs. You must just not be a reliable, honest citizen anymore.
Parent
Obligatory Judas Priest... (Score:2)
Gotta wonder.... (Score:2)
... if they could have spend the money on something more important....
abuse vs. misuse (Score:2)
Uhm, that study may be pointing out at potential misuse of the lists &mdash treating the entries as actual terrorists, rather than mere suspects — but not at abuse. Software is not going to care. It takes an actual overzealous cop to abuse the list by placing a person on it, against whom no reasonable suspicions exist.
That said, considerin
Pft (Score:4, Interesting)
The stupid stuff that happened in the 60's and 70's != 9/11 pal. TOTALLY different in every way. To combine the two is like saying that McCain's torture has something to do with his erratic behavior, or the fact that he's a child molester. Ok, bad example.
The FOUNDERS of this country were terrorists in the eyes of King George. But what they did was fight to create a better situation for themselves. You saw that again in the 60's and 70's with civil rights and the youth movement. Yes, the Weather Underground were a bunch of idiots but it's important to note that the changes some of their peers helped bring about have made this country a massively better place for everyone. And anyway, the real fear is religious fanatics with a nuclear weapon, not some dumb kids with pipe bombs.
And you sir are a fool to think that it has anything to do with "WAR". It's just that war epitomizes the separation of class. In the 70's there were drastic (though not as drastic as today) gaps between rich and poor. A horrible economy, an unending war, caused by foolish leadership, taken advantage of by the rich while the poor starve and are jobless, well, what's worse than that?
What this is doing is placing still more power, surveilence power (control), into the hands of a few people in the government. The same people who have pretty much given the government to corporations they formerly ran, and now are giving 700B to the same people. It's in the largest worldwide corporations' interest to A. have control of a government B. Erase worldwide borders caused by multiple currencies/legal systems/etc. "War" rarely physically involves the rich, unless it's a passtime they get off on. It's about money. Now what we have are the makings for a massive shift in government, from multiple countries to one world government. It is 100% enevitable. The people who control the wealth of the world talk to one another, you know. And it sure would be simpler for them if they didn't have to mess with different legal systems..
WWII was between capitalism (The allies), corporatism or fascism (the axis), and communism (the Soviets/China). We the U.S. were actually on the fence and were supporting both the forces of corporatism and capitalism. See also The New Deal [wikipedia.org]. The problem is that the American constitution has separated public and private as much as it does church and state. In the end, money won. The plans showed that if we joined with England, Germany could be beaten. Frankly, there were just more English decended families in power in congress at the time. Obviously in Germany corporatism was over-stateist and led by a madman, which led to extremes that made the choice a no-brainer. The important thing to note is that it was not the economic policy of Hitler but rather other more personal reasons that caused us to ally with the Allies. Likewise, Japan bombed us because they were invading China and the Phillipines, whom we had relations with/had a territory. So, it was a no-brainer.
But NOW, we have an entirely different power structure. There are many "free market" scholars who have long admired the structure of corporatism. So, you see some of these people's last gasp in the political arena as trying to make this leap. And so, just as Bush Cheney has broken the barriers of Church and State, they have also broken the barriers of public and private. And in many ways they have flat out BROKEN the LAW (and the constitution). They declared early that the president decides the law, so they made up their own book. And with Globalism, what will be the enevitable structure of this one world government? Not capitalism, that's for growth. Not communism, that's for stagnation. No, a perfectly controlled business environment, neo-corporatism, with some facets of democracy.
So now the competing philosophies in the high end of world leadership are differing only by what to do with US, the worker bees. I think corporatism could wo
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, considering the present-day prominence (and a comfortable life of a tenured professor) of an anti-war protester turned terrorist [nytimes.com] (to this day unrepentant), the Maryland cops' action is not that unconscious...
Yes it is. If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him. If he didn't, then he should be considered on an equal footing to every other innocent man. You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.
Eyeroll (Score:5, Informative)
...since these programs are classified "above top secret"...
Cripes, are people really this freakin' dense? Take a look in the dictionary under "top" and figure out what the word means. It means there ain't nuthin' above it!
The classification levels--- UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET--- are all there are, and simply determine what general degree of security is required. Now, individual subjects or programs will be compartmentalized, which is the more specific degree of access limitation within the general classification (referred to as Sensitive Compartmented Information - SCI and Special Access Programs - SAP). Compartmentalization tells who, where, and how much information can be revealed, and is based entirely on need to know. For example, I had a TOP SECRET clearance when I was in the Army, but I was specifically cleared for only a narrow subset (i.e. a compartment) of TOP SECRET information which pertained to my specific job, that of HUMINT Collector. Since I did not need to know about the whatever the latest hypersonic spy plane test bed is, I could not drive into Area 51 and go look at it, despite it certainly being classified TOP SECRET, and me holding a TOP SECRET clearance. The idea that there's some super-secret classification level above top secret is idiocy spouted by moron UFO conspiracy nutjobs who can't even consult Wikipedia for a simple overview of the classification system [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*cough*ULTRA*cough
Sorry, I was going to say that there is a certain precedent for clearence levels so high most people don't even know they exist. That's not to say that it's the case here, just that in general it's would be foolish to think that TOP SECRET is as high as you can go.
Re:Eyeroll (Score:4, Informative)
*cough*ULTRA*cough
Sorry, I was going to say that there is a certain precedent for clearence levels so high most people don't even know they exist. That's not to say that it's the case here, just that in general it's would be foolish to think that TOP SECRET is as high as you can go.
Jeebus, like I said, you need to read the Wikipedia link, you UFO nutcase.
First, the uses of "ULTRA" seen in the UFO conspiracy rags is as a caveat to the classification "TOP SECRET".
Second, there is no caveat of "ULTRA" in the current collection, and no, there are no "secret" caveats. There are classified SCIs and SAPs, but they are never indicated by a single word, much less a meaningful word like "ULTRA".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no level above TOP SECRET because Wikipedia said so. Wow! Who's the frickin nut case? Don't believe everything you read, especially if anybody in the world can edit the gd page you're reading.
The basic reason why there isn't a level above top secret is very boring and pragmatic: it is imperative that the classification hierarchy is well-known so that personnel that are cleared for lower levels know to avoid material they happen across that is stamped with a higher level.
For instance, someone cleared for secret might be visiting a facility that holds top secret documents. It is important then for them to be aware that any top secret documents they glance held by the staff or whatever is off-limit
Re:Eyeroll (Score:4, Informative)
That's only partly true. While the classification system is not classified, the names of specific compartments or special access programs can be and are classified. A nit, but might as well be accurate. :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oops, I was wrong on this point, and it is an important distinction to be made.
Well... you're both right. Many SCIs and SAPs have their code names classified the same as the programs themselves, but the only the full name of the program is unclassified. For example, there might be a program called BLUE ROOSTER LATERAL, and that name would be classified, but the cover sheet and external program references would be labeled "TOP SECRET - SCI/BRL", and that name reference would not be classified.
Any memory gaps? (Score:3, Funny)
The article does sound rather garish, but considering systems within systems, parallel to systems, and funky classifications invented by paranoid department heads and Dick Cheney coming up with his own stamps with his own classifications of, "Shhh. Don't Tell Anyone" I find it hard to believe that things are nearly so well-ordered as you portray.
Do you have any odd memory gaps or personality quirks which you didn't have before you entered the service? Even if there has been zero improvement over the mind c [sharebee.com]
Re:Eyeroll (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, although you may be technically be right, it doesn't help that the link you provide clearly shows a level of security above 'Top Secret'. Claim that SCI is just a subset of Top Secret all you want
It is a subset of TOP SECRET. You can tell by how they use the SCI caveat by writing "TOP SECRET-SCI/xxx" when they use it.
but the fact remains that there are programs out there who's classification level itself is a secret
Yes, the full name of SCIs and SAPs are classified at the same level as the project itself. That doesn't make it higher than TOP SECRET.
so if you're not only not allowed to know that the program exists, but also not allowed to know how secret it is... that might be above knowing that something is 'Top Secret'.
One of the defining characteristics of a secure and workable classification system is that the system itself is completely unclassified. Having parts of the system secret would make it impossible to recognize mishandled material. If (for example) a folder full of UFO data labeled "MEGA SECRET - SUPER-LEET" that got accidentally left in the hands of someone without clearance to know such a level of classification existed, they'd have no reason to believe it was anything but a joke, and would READ IT rather than take it unopened to the closest security, which is what you WANT them to do.
Really, it's very, very simple.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When'd you get out? Fellow HUMINTer here.
2003, but my first stint was back in the good ol' days of the cold war, '87-'93, when we were still called "Interrogator/Linguist".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I've got to ask, because I always wondered but never knew someone with a Top Secret clearance.
Why do they have things like Top Secret Poly (and other qualifiers) which use polygraphs, when the polygraph is a bullshit technology?
Great... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, yeah it is! Don't fool yourself. You guys who think you know about imaging have no idea. Just hold your newspaper slanted a bit so they can read over your shoulder. Posted AC on purpose. This is not a joke.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you know for certain what they have up there? If not, maybe you should think twice before casually dismissing news you don't like with lame-o "tinfoil hat" responses.
Re:Too much Enemy Of The State (Score:5, Insightful)
If our remote sensing was really as good as the article implies, then US forces wouldn't have been subject to as many IED attacks in Iraq as we have suffered. Now you want me to believe that they can put such resources to work tracking domestic US citizens?
I'll say it also, satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.
Parent
Re:Too much Enemy Of The State (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why have it? It is built for surveillance or why would you have it. Obviously it doesn't have to be that great to be useful and is meant to be used with other apparatus (that doesn't exist in Iraq) to achieve it's goals. Saying this is a means to justify feeling comfortable living in a police state and maintain the illusion of freedom. It doesn't matter what it can or can't do, what matters is what it is for.
Benjamin Franklin said that the constitution (for all it's flaws) wouldn't save America from despotism, and as the mechanism's have been put in place incrementally, we see he was right.
I wonder how hot the water is for the frog now?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Satellite imaging is really pretty good. Better than you think. The military stuff is excellent. Imagine what we're doing now with atmospheric telescopes that we couldn't have done twenty years ago and realize that the same principles apply when the direction is reversed.
What really pisses me off is that I would have gone to jail back in the da
Re:Too much Enemy Of The State (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to get pissed at you - not for giving up secrets, but for talking out of your ass. And for trying to make us believe that even though you've been out 'long enough' which implies you aren't familiar with current tech. (And you show you aren't even up on what's publicly known.)
Satellite imaging is OK, but less impressive than you might think. Resolution is much less than fiction/Hollywood would have you believe, and coverage isn't real time. If a bird isn't available (and it rarely is) when what you want to see is going down, you are SOL.
Horseshit. Adaptive optics depend on seeing a guide star created by a laser, something you can't do with a satellite. There's also a technique involving taking multiple images and analyzing them - you can't do that from a satellite either as it moves too quickly.
Parent
Re:Too much Enemy Of The State (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't know anything about the quality of the images of the latest military and NSA spy satellites.
All you know is that your government can do no wrong. OK, you don't know anything about that, either - despite the indelible lessons of this entire decade.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You never needed to stop. In fact, it made me very sad when you stopped. I had to *pay* for porn again.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, so people are 1 pixel.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, so people are 1 pixel.
HEY! That pixel just flipped me off!
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's either a bunch of FUD or a giant step backward. Thirty years ago, the word was that they could resolve two golf balls on the ground if they were separated by the width of one golf ball.
I wouldn't call it FUD. F is for fear, and if it's a giant step backward, fear doesn't apply here. So you can call it just "UD" :)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:4, Funny)
Great North Air Ambulance? [wikipedia.org]
Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry? [wikipedia.org] That doesn't even make sense.
Guilford Native American Association? [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Trollish Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I am getting really sick of hearing how big corps "picked" Obama and McCain, ... we picked them not Exxon or McDonalds
Or Newscorp?
After watching how Ron Paul and Alan Keys were both marginalized by selective non-reporting (despite Paul's recordbreaking fundraising and massive grassroots support), I have no trouble viewing McCain as a corporate pick (or the people's pick from the corporations' small set of approved options). Ditto Obama (and Clinton) vs. Kucinich.
Parent
Re:Trollish Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you sure they didn't marginalize themselves? I would submit that Ron Paul was largely ignored because most voters weren't picking up what he was laying down, and he didn't have the skills to convince them.
Kucinich likewise is unable to be very convincing. Whenever I read about something he's doing, I agree with him in spirit, but he's not being at all realistic. He's still trying to impeach Bush. I think Bush should be impeached, but it's not going to happen. To keep doing it looks more like masturbation than leading. To be honest, that doesn't just make him a bad canidate, it also would have made him a bad president. Politicians have to be realistic and willing to compromise to get anything done.
I don't know much about Alan Keys, but my impression was that he was too conservative even for the republican party.
So is it that Obama and McCain are the corporate pick or the sane pick?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CNN has had three [cnn.com] articles [cnn.com] written [cnn.com] by Ron Paul about the tanking economy and election in the last month. Two that I know of were linked from the front page. Barely a peep about him when he was running for President.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Again, what indication do you have that any of their messages would have resonated with a largely apathetic, willfully ignorant american public? I think their messages have merit, but they didn't get any traction because most people weren't already convinced, not because they were ignored by the media.
If the media has a blame, it's that they've shortened our attention spans to where we won't give a canidate time to convince us of anything we aren't already convinced of.
Which... when you think about it... i
Re:Trollish Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, what indication do you have that any of their messages would have resonated with a largely apathetic, willfully ignorant american public?
I contest your characterization of the American public.
Ron Paul effectively got exposure ONLY on the internet - which the Old Media were unable to gatekeep - and by word of mouth. His message had VERY broad appeal - among Republicans, Democrats, Independents, new voters, old voters who had given up and dropped out, ... (If he'd gotten started 9 months earlier and the rate had kept up he'd have taken the nomination handily - and the presidency as well.) He broke the all-time one-day fundraising record, pulling in millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of contributors averaging about $100 each, while his support in polls was still single-digit.
His message is an old one: Freedom, limited government. And it is the SAME message that has a track record of doing this same sort of mass-movement-inspiration in the past, resulting in the American Revolution and the creation of the current government (among its other success stories).
Given the message's historic track record (especially among downtrodden elite-ridden "huddled masses") and Ron's personal record using it, I have little doubt that it was only the lack of exposure in, and distortion by, the old media that is responsible for his continued marginalization.
I think their messages have merit, but they didn't get any traction because most people weren't already convinced, not because they were ignored by the media.
And how does one convince them if they don't hear the arguments? Since the message is very convincing WHEN IT'S DELIVERED, it's specifically "being ignored (or distorted and libeled) by the media" that is the missing link.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After watching how Ron Paul and Alan Keys were both marginalized by selective non-reporting (despite Paul's recordbreaking fundraising and massive grassroots support), I have no trouble viewing McCain as a corporate pick (or the people's pick from the corporations' small set of approved options). Ditto Obama (and Clinton) vs. Kucinich.
Reminds me of the one CBS news story I saw on Ron Paul. The story was on one of *those* Los Vegas places where apparently the ladies where asking for donations for the campaign from the clients. Now I can't help but get the feeling that CBS purposefully went out to look for the one thing about about Ron Paul that would offend the most people, while at the same time avoiding any coverage that would give people any clue who the heck he is in the first place. Meh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)