US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically

DigitAl56K writes "The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."

Blowback

We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions. This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us.

Re:Blowback

the current administration loves abuses of power The current administration. As if the exponential growth of the US federal government over the past century, in both revenue and power over the people, and the steady consolidation of power into the hands of the few -- everything which makes abuse of power readily possible -- can be attributed to the current administration?

Previous administrations were always pushing the envelope, stretching things further and further, with occasional steps outside. The current administration took a Zippo to the envelope, said "fuck you and your stupid envelope," and called us terrorist sympathizers, traitors, and actual terrorists if we complained.

New generation of privacy concerns

If we take the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

.. how does this apply to aerial or satellite surveillance where we are now talking about technologies that can monitor us everywhere we go and using different techniques than we are used to?

Examples:

• If I am reading e-mail on my phone outdoors (for the sake of argument lets assume it was transmitted securely) and I'm not openly displaying it to others, yet a UAV can see the text because it's above me, am I secure in my effects? What if it is a public place but there is nobody near me and it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could see what I'm looking at? Even in the workplace, when I type my password into my desktop my coworkers, should they be near my desk, look away because their is an assumed need for privacy under some circumstances.
   
• Satelites and UAVs do not just see in the visible spectrum. What happens when they are capable of looking into our homes either actively or passively via different ranges of the spectrum? One one hand, if I am yelling inside my house and there are people outside who overhear, that's my own fault. If a UAV can discern objects and people through a roof, monitor radio emissions and so forth, is that the same thing? My intuition says no, but I doubt it's defined.
   
• Satelites, UAVs, and even cell networks have the ability to track our every move, and by monitoring us all build a social probability map (if you are regularly near other individuals and perhaps at some point have travelled to the same points at the same time or along the same route, you probably know them, can be expanded to group relationship probabilities). Although I don't have much of an expectation of privacy in public places, I do not have an expectation that I should be monitored in my every move and in every relationship I have with other individuals by any entity. However, increasingly that is a) possible, and b) likely.

Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?

I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

"The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to domestic military operations." [yahoo.com]

We're far beyond the ability to fight back against the stripping of our rights. Fight back and you're a terrorist, pedophile, and communist, of course.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

"domestic military operations"?

"DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS"?

that phrase scares the shit out of me. i want the military standing at the border looking out, not standing on the street corner looking at me.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

If we take the fourth amendment

That's the weak point of most arguing for stronger privacy rights. The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now some will flame away with their own personal views about what unreasonable means and what secure in ones papers, etc. means, but the fact is the view that is in vogue in most political circles is that unreasonable means that the person searched was somehow greatly inconvenienced by the search. This doesn' provide a very strong defense for privacy.

So, we are forced to look elsewhere. The greatest argument for privacy comes from the fourteenth amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The pertinent language their regarding privacy in there is the phrase "...property, without due process of law..." Therefore, any person arguing for a strong right to privacy has the fact on their side that the fourteenth amendment requires due process for any act that the government takes to manipulate the property of a citizen, intellectual or otherwise, must come with due process. This is where the libertarians have it right. To have any sort of privacy we must strengthen property rights, intellectual or otherwise. Now I know intellectual property is not a popular concept around here, but is going to become a political necessity in the near future when the cost barrier to record and store massive amounts of data about a citizen becomes lower and lower.

In short, forget the fourth amendment. No matter its original intent, it's been chopped up and rendered almost useless when it comes to effectively guarding privacy. A spying program is essentially a government requisition of private intellectual property. Due process is a much stronger defense for privacy.

If There Was Any Chance...

If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.

This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.

More on the "advanced spy technology"

Last year CNET reported [news.com] on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".

Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout [youtube.com], Global Hawk [youtube.com], Predator 2 [youtube.com], and the Dominator [youtube.com], their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.

According to DefenseNews [defensenews.com] the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).

Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.

"Fighting Americans since 2000"

... another violation of your rights, brought to you by Bush & co & sons. Coming to a theater near you. Enjoy.

There's a website I came across last year...

...that vowed to track abuses of power, defend privacy rights and freedoms, fight fascism, defend the constitution.

It was based in the south, covered with the flags of the USA and the CSA, and railed against Clinton for the filegate thing, Waco, etc.

Odd thing was, it hasn't been updated since around 2000, the forums have gone strangely silent. Not a peep about Bush.

I think perhaps these brave defenders of freedom are so outraged by Bush, so aware of constitutional issues that they say the threat more clearly than others, and that they have decided to take their movement underground, make it more clandestine.

Yeah, that's probably it.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Somewhat implicit in your response is that you assume that you'd even see the inside of a public courtroom. If the administration can ignore laws which people heretofore assumed applied to them, who's to say that people allegedly caught with this "new" technology are entitled to a fair hearing? Scary stuff.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

How cute, somebody who thinks he'll have a trial. A trial where he gets to see the evidence, no less.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them.

Admissible in court?? It was a court (the Supreme one) that we have to thank for all this, after their boneheaded decision in November of 2000.

Long after other presidents have been forgotten, George W. Bush will be remembered for what he did.

And domestic spying from outer space isn't even close to the worst. Hell, compared to the torture business that's been breaking in the news in the past 2 weeks with the John Yoo torture memorandum and now the information about the "star chamber" that layed out the plan for this torture regime, domestic surveillance like this is barely a blip on the radar of evil.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Actually, it is. It says nothing about differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. Where does it say in the constitution that these rights are for citizens only and/or that non-citizens should be excluded from these rights?

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Not to mention that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant any rights at all. Not a single one. They merely recognize some of the rights that all people already have. That's why they're called rights, not privileges or some such, after all.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

I thought they were called "inalienable rights" because they applied to everybody, no matter what? Where does it say otherwise?

How can we function as a nation if our marching order is to treat citizens of other countries as less than human and not deserving of basic civil rights? Although, now that I think about it, it would partially explain Bush and company.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

I wrote to my various congress critters, state side and federal side... so far, I have yet to ever get anything back but a cookie cutter letter. Hell even the signature was a copy.

Pretty sad that people like you still believe that congress critters listen.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

While great in theory, the practice seems to be rather different.

Congress these days seems to be taking care of its constituents nicely. Its true constituents, the corporations who donate to their re-election campaigns. The citizenry is their product, and we have been delivered to their constituents. Unless you are a massive campaign contributor, they're not listening to you. And I mean 'massive' as in the case of 'borderline illegal'.

You say that they can be voted out, but this is very unlikely. Somebody quoted me a figure of 98% re-election results for a sitting Congresscritter, although I haven't found any links on it, so take that figure with a grain of salt. Even if the figure was as low as 66.67% re-elected, replacing a sitting Congresscritter literally takes an act of Congress. Possible, but you'd have better luck playing the lottery.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?

Where have you been for the last seven years?

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

How not so?

Operates independently of law, and unilaterally re-writes laws as they are signed.

The US Congress is like Julius Caesar's Senate - soon to be like Tiberius and Caligula's.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

This also has some truth to it. I think what has happened is that Bush & Co. recognized early on that by controlling the media, not necessarily the majority of the media, but the media the reaches the majority of the people, that they can get away with whatever they like, that only a vocal minority would even be aware of what was going on around them, and that this minority are not the group of people that would protest in a fashion that would actually effect a change.

Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.

Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the /. audience falls into the second category.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?" I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?

Not to get all "Conspiracy Theory," but I kind of wonder if this has been in the works since the time Prescott Bush, father of George H. W. Bush plotted with other business leaders to overthrow the government of FDR. "41," I believe, has been quoted as admiring the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't be all that surprising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot [wikipedia.org]

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm.

Imagine your government wrongfully accusing you of a crime and thereafter tracking your every movement and association.

At what point do we say enough is enough? We can already catch kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk. We already have helicopters. At some point the potential for abuse, which we know based on virtually every aspect of the Bush administration and governments worldwide will be realized eventually, must outweigh the marginal benefit we gain.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

Chance for abuse? CHANCE FOR ABUSE?!

Are you new to the world? This administration has abused every single bit of leverage or opening they've been given. You're damned right we're paranoid, and our government has demonstrated repeatedly why we need to be. Congress is questioning the legality of it while Bush is burning every copy of the Constitution he can find. I don't care at all whether this is legal - it cannot be allowed. As a nation, we elected a whole lot of congressmen in 2006 for the purpose of reigning in Bush and the Iraq war. Not only have they utterly failed to do so, they've allowed our civil liberties to be even further trampled upon. Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for blocking the administration's abuse of power, so we as voters are left with a choice between evicting as many as possible and starting over, or just electing the same old crew to do the same old job.

I pray that all the Slashdotters who complain about stories like this (and who are citizens the USA) are going to use their right to vote this November to make their voices heard.

Re:What are they looking for?

Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about.

The government wants to know about everyone so that they can data mine to identify people they do care about, and you better hope through some ill twist of fate you don't end up matching their criteria - and who knows what that is? The ACLU reports that the US terror watch list now has nearly one million [aclu.org] names on it. Do you actually believe there are nearly one million terrorists in the country? Hmmm?