Homeland Security's Space-Based Spying Goes Live 289
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."
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:Too much Enemy Of The State (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:1, Interesting)
uh yes it is the newest satalite that is camercail can see smthing as small as sixteen incches wide military and goverment even smaller.
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.
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?
Re:Too much Enemy Of The State (Score:0, Interesting)
Read for comprehension, dickbite. That's why I explicitly said either a bunch of FUD or a giant step backward. Read up on it -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or [wikipedia.org]
captcha -- indolent -- ha -- they saw you coming!
Re:Trollish Summary (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... is much more depressing than them intentionally sidelining a particular canidate.
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
The public knowledge of feasible technology today. (Score:2, Interesting)
The public knowledge of feasible technology today is laughably behind. We've had radically advanced aircraft since the late 50s that are still not publicly disclosed, other than a few blueprints due to the FOIA.
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/Silverbug.pdf [cufon.org]
That is just the aircraft our government has not disclosed to the public. With advances in computers, satellites, and optics, is there any question that some part of our government can see almost anything on the planet, at any time? This combined with the universal wire tapping that has gone through and still in place....
We live in a society where the government can see everything you do, hear everything you do, does not count the votes at all, and even if they did count the votes, the media makes sure you are not informed about any valid candidates that are not completely beholden to the corporations that now run and control everything.
The Bill of Rights has been almost completely removed, the Constitution is almost completely void, and there is almost no military chance to revolt.
This is why I'm not breeding. I don't want to breed slaves.
Re:Trollish Summary (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Why exactly do you have little doubt about that? You said he had broad appeal, yet the fact that he was unable to secure a nomination indicates that it wasn't broad enough with republicans, and he at least seemed to think he didn't have enough broad appeal to have a legitimate shot as a 3rd party candidate.
He raised a lot of money, so did Dean. Went nowhere. I think the people who agreed with him REALLY agreed with him, but that doesn't translate into most of the voting public agreeing at all with him.
His message may be old, and I think you're saying that if he had been given a fair shot it therefore would have worked again, I see no proof of that.
I see no reason why his message was so repugnant to the mainstream media that they had a conspiracy to ignore him.
I also don't see any evidence that the media is as effective at setting our politics as you're saying. Right now, for example, the media isn't really reporting on anything besides Sarah Palin, yet Obama is gaining ground, not losing.
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.
You're really taking it for granted that his message is compelling to everyone rather than just a small group of people. Ron Paul's particular brand of it may have been novel, but libertarianism has been around for a long time and yet has not been much of a political force. It seems to me that most people really don't care about libertarianism, and not because the media isn't talking about it.
Re:USA, Lost its way! (Score:1, Interesting)