DHS To Kill Domestic Satellite Spying Program 150
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.'"
DHS should kill (Score:3, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like targetting agreements. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Like targetting agreements. (Score:4, Insightful)
In lots of jurisdictions, a cop could just smash through your door and chalk it up to a mistake, with few consequences.
Sure, they wouldn't be able to prosecute you, but that wouldn't make the events a whole lot more convenient to you.
more use (Score:1, Insightful)
Food for thought:
The best way to maximise the power of these would be to use them day to day. The more comfortable and accurate we can make it on the common stuff, the better the technology will be when we need it for something more serious.
On that note, where can I get a tinfoil hat to cover my house?
Did they violate his anonymity? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
"Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it."*
Later on:
"Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement."*
*(Emphasis mine)
Anonymity. Yes, we've heard of it.
-dZ.
Re:Like targetting agreements. (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting thing here -- and this comment is partly motivated by your sig -- is that this killing of the domestic satellite spying program is not a liberal action but a conservative one. If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differ, here it is. Republicans such as Peter King will say this is "a step back in the war on terror" but a real conservative would say the U.S. government never had any business spying on its citizens in the first place.
Re:Privacy Concerns? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Concerns? Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine I have a 7 foot (or higher) privacy fence around my back yard. I have an expectation of privacy. Or I happen to own 150 acres in the middle of nowhere. I have less, but still some, expectation of privacy there as well.
Re:Great news, IMO (Score:1, Insightful)
In my own arrest a few years ago, for innocent behavior that looked suspicious from afar, I was never once interviewed by a law enforcement officer or prosecutor and given a chance to tell my story, right up to the morning of the trial.
Would that have helped? We are often reminded not to talk to the police. In their current incarnation, the police don't seem to be in the business of maintaining peace and order, but rather in the business of arresting people.
In the current system, pleading with an officer wouldn't do much good. Their role is only to bring in suspects. It is for the courts to decide on the validity of the accusations. Maybe that's not how it ought to be... but that's the way it currently is. As such, talking to the police would not have done you much good.
Re:Great news, IMO (Score:5, Insightful)
So the real story is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The title would be less exciting if it read "Bush and Obama has never used satellites to spy on Americans".
Bush didn't use spy satellites our of privacy and civil liberty concerns. Got it.
Now that we are straight on this particular issue, let the Bush bashing begin.
Re:DHS should kill (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why you were modded "flamebait", but I agree ATF and the DEA should be abolished; alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are legal and the ATF is simply a holdover from alcohol prohibition. Drugs should be legalized, as drug laws cause all the problems they purport to solve.
But you can't have government without some means of payiing for it, and I, for one, don't want some rich asshole who already has a lower tax rate than me able to easily cheat on his taxes. I pay my taxes and it irks me that someone tries to get out of paying theirs. When you cheat on your taxes, you steal from ME.
Re:It has to be said (Score:3, Insightful)
Small correction (Score:4, Insightful)
The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request
It seems the opening paragraph should have said, "The Obama administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens." On the other hand, why let the facts get in the way of a good line?
Re:Like targetting agreements. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differ
Nice word game, and example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
All nice job at partisan baiting. Attribute all positives to the side you identify with, and all negatives to your mythical "liberal" enemies.
I'm getting really sick of these silly dogmatic partisan statements. 100% of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and whatever stupid ideology people identify with are wrong. Some small amount of their greater ideology might not be wrong, but the larger corpus of ideals is always wrong. Anyone who identifies themselves within a pure ideology, probably completely divorced from reality, or at least very uninformed. Ideology blinds us to what politics is about, and should be about, PEOPLE, and more so, people in the real world, not some ideologically pure fantasy land.