Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Communications Privacy Security United States

FBI Forced To Release 18 Hours of Spy Plane Footage (vice.com) 242

Posted by EditorDavid from the eye-in-the-sky dept.
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from Motherboard: It's been just over a year since amateur aviation sleuths first revealed the FBI's secret aerial surveillance of the civil unrest in Baltimore, Maryland. Now, in response to a FOIA request from the ACLU, the Bureau has released more than 18 hours of aerial footage from the Baltimore protests captured by their once-secret spy planes, which regularly fly in circles above major cities and are commonly registered to fake companies.

The cache is likely the most comprehensive collection of aerial surveillance footage ever released by a US law enforcement agency... The footage shows the crowds of protesters captured in a combination of visible light and infrared spectrum video taken by the planes' wing-mounted FLIR Talon cameras. While individual faces are not clearly visible in the videos, it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future.
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspectds in serious crime investigations, according to the article, which adds that "The FBI flew their spy planes more than 3,500 times in the last six months of 2015, according to a Buzzfeed News analysis of data collected by the aircraft-tracking site FlightRadar24."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Forced To Release 18 Hours of Spy Plane Footage More

FBI Forced To Release 18 Hours of Spy Plane Footage

Comments Filter:

  • Any time the FBI gives you something... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SadButResolved ( 521330 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @06:50AM (#52663841)
    Understand they professional liars, please look again at the email server testimony.
    Just like in the Shooting by FBI agents in Oregon, they reduce the quality of their video capture to some grainy piece of useless crap then hand it over to the public. Do you honestly think they spent billions, and can not facially recognize people from a plane camera? They could read a newspaper in the 60's from 38000 feet up.
    Now ask yourself who is authorizing of this? Why? Robert "LaVoy" anyone?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Salgak1 ( 20136 )

      In the late 1980s, we heard rumors that we could read newspapers from ORBIT. Assuming that the FBI and similar could not identify and track specific individuals from 20,000-40,000 feet, assuming clear skies, is utter denial in 2016. . . .

      • Rumors are exactly what you heard.

      • In the late 1980s, we heard rumors that we could read newspapers from ORBIT.

        The rumors I heard never said that they could read anything beyond maybe the headlines, and that only on a clear day. You could identify a coke can on its side, or you could read a license plate if they were facing the sky which they aren't, but not actually read a newspaper. Anyone who believed that you could do that is an incredible sucker.

      • FYI - the Cessna 182s they use would struggle mightily to eek up to 20,000 feet if they could even get that high. I have flown them many times and my guess for their operating altitude over Baltimore is more like 3,000 feet or so. BTW - no law against anyone flying around taking photos of anything they can see. I do it all the time for my business of aerial photography ;)

      • In the late 1980s, we heard rumors that we could read newspapers from ORBIT.

        And it was bullshit. I was pretty sure it was bullshit at the time, but eventually it was indeed confirmed as bullshit.

        It's very, VERY unlikely that this degree of resolution will ever be possible, mostly because of the effects of atmospheric distortion. There are real-world limits.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        You've never seen evidence of this because none exists outside of the movies.

    • First thing I thought.. That was probably the ultra low-res we might have to send to the public someday feed..

    • The takeway is simple.

      If you're going to join a protest demonstration, make sure you've shaved, shine your shoes, comb your hair, cover up your more offensive tattoos, wear presentable clothes (if at all possible wear a tie). Comport yourself with quiet dignity throughout the demonstration. Also make sure any slogans you hold are correctly spelled.

      It could swing the jury your way at trial years later when the footage is produced in court as part of examination of your character.

  • The eye in the sky... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08, 2016 @06:52AM (#52663853)

    tracking where you come from and where you go...

    http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/

  • Luddism by any other name (Score:4, Interesting)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday August 08, 2016 @07:00AM (#52663873)

    I guess law enforcement shouldn't be able to use aircraft or cameras. Maybe they shouldn't be able to use cars or computers, either.

    I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.

    • Re:Luddism by any other name (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @07:08AM (#52663893)

      Perhaps the FBI realizes there might be an issue with the way they conduct their surveillance flights.
      Otherwise, they wouldn't bother trying to hide the ownership of the aircraft behind a shell company.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tburkhol ( 121842 )

      I guess law enforcement shouldn't be able to use aircraft or cameras. Maybe they shouldn't be able to use cars or computers, either.

      A large part of your privacy derives from the cost of individual investigation. Back in the day when a wire tap involved a human making physical connections and a transcriptionist listening to every conversation, taps were infrequently used, and used only when an investigator was pretty sure it would be fruitful. When surveillance meant sending a team of officers, in shifts, to personally watch their suspect, they were already pretty sure they'd get good information. Budgetary constraints are very strong

    • I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.

      In theory, law is paramount, but we are governed by the rule of lawmakers not law. Our entire society is strangled by our self-fulfilling legal system. Look at how... well... EVERYTHING runs. EULAs. Disclaimers. TV commercials that flash miniscule paragraphs on the screen. Mountains of paperwork to do anything. Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits. We are steeped in a society that lawyers have created, and manage, and ensure that we stay that way. Don't like something? Create a new law to make it legal.

  • And people laughed at the camouflage netting over my yard...
    • Better put on that tinfoil hat too. And put a little ventilator on top of it to cool it. It might shield your body from the infra-red cameras...

    • And people laughed at the camouflage netting over my yard...

      I don't see any camo- oh, wait.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      With todays low prices on what contractors can sell at a state and federal level?
      At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies quietly deployed radars that let them effectively see inside homes, with little notice to the courts or the public. (January 20, 2015)
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
      Gone is "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion."

  • Most planes have stringrays, they ID you by phone (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sasparillascott ( 1267058 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @07:08AM (#52663895)
    Many of these planes also have Stingray's (cell site simulators) so they ID everyone they fly over by their smartphones, they don't need to visually ID the people with the camera's. I am a pilot and saw one of these planes orbiting the Gurnee Mills Mall (Northern Chicago suburbs - could tell as it had the odd ball (where the camera is) sticking out behind one the main wheels on the 182), just cruising around and around at low altitude a couple of months ago. Felt very disconcerting to know my and my wife's phone ID had probably been swept up in that - turned them off but was obviously too late. Land of the free...
    • FYI I used to fly a plane with "extra" antennas that we had a contract for to fly around the city looking for leaking cable TV signals.

  • Sombrero party time (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jesrad ( 716567 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @07:24AM (#52663943) Journal

    it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could

    ...be easily defeated by wearing a sombrero hat, as humorously explained in the sci-fi novel "Fallen Dragon" by Peter F. Hamilton.

    • So who are we looking for?

      This twat in the big hat who thinks he's clever.

    • The DHS bans sombreros. And Guy Fawkes masks.

      Game over.

      Actually, something like this was done in modern Germany about 20 years ago. (I'm American, but am fluent in German). Protesters are banned from masking themselves.

  • If they only use for serious crime investigations (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ai4px ( 1244212 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @07:29AM (#52663959)
    The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations.... then why are the registered to fake companies under fake names?

    • The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations.... then why are the registered to fake companies under fake names?

      That's the easiest part to explain. Not all criminals are stupid. Some of them are capable of spotting a plane with optics and looking up a tail number. The hard part to explain is why they're gathering footage from protests. Their bullshit explanations don't wash.

      • Re:If they only use for serious crime investigatio (Score:5, Insightful)

        by El Cubano ( 631386 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @08:00AM (#52664109)

        The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations.... then why are the registered to fake companies under fake names?

        That's the easiest part to explain. Not all criminals are stupid. Some of them are capable of spotting a plane with optics and looking up a tail number. The hard part to explain is why they're gathering footage from protests. Their bullshit explanations don't wash.

        I agree. This is especially problematic with organized crime, cartels, etc. This sort of thing allows law enforcement to compartmentalize better. That is, not all investigators on a case need to know the when/where/why of special surveillance activities.

        The more problematic part, and the part which gives me conflict about this (i.e., I believe law enforcement should have tools that allow them to do their jobs effectively, but I also believe that tools which promote/facilitate the erosion of civil liberties should be out of reach), is that while many people in the government are upstanding and law abiding, many are not. Remember, the employees of the federal government come from the same population in which we all live. There are good people and bad people. For every "good cop" who respects the rights of the average citizen and takes great care in discharging his or her responsibilities there is at least one "bad cop" who doesn't care or who willfully infringes on people's rights because he or she believes it is OK (e.g., the ends justify the means). We don't typically hear about the good cops and the cases with good outcomes, since those don't tend to make for good headlines. Rather we only hear about the bad episodes, of which there are plenty.

        This is most definitely not an easy problem to solve.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hyades1 ( 1149581 )

          Sadly, too many "good" cops are willing to lie and conceal evidence that would expose the activities of "bad" cops.

          As far as I'm concerned, that should cost them the "good cop" appellation, but somehow it never does.

    • "The FBI says..."

      That's how modern-day fairy tales begin.

  • Nice work guys.

    The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspectds in serious crime investigations

  • "The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations"

    Somehow, with all we know about how the FBI works, I find this hard to believe.

  • What would happen... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acoustix ( 123925 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @08:26AM (#52664229)

    ...if I had a fleet of planes in my possession that I regularly flew over cities and the planes were also registered to fake companies for the purpose of obtaining video and pictures? Would I be arrested, charged or fined for these actions? If so, then why is it acceptable for the FBI?

    • Re:What would happen... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moeinvt ( 851793 ) on Monday August 08, 2016 @09:17AM (#52664497)

      One set of rules for bankers, government employees and the ultra-wealthy, another, much harsher set for everyone else.

      Imagine one of us average serfs transferring weapons to Mexican drug cartels and having one of those weapons used to murder a border patrol agent?
      Little people: life in prison
      Government employees: not even a slap on the wrist! (except for the guy that tried to blow the whistle, who got fired)

    • ...if I had a fleet of planes in my possession that I regularly flew over cities and the planes were also registered to fake companies for the purpose of obtaining video and pictures? Would I be arrested, charged or fined for these actions?

      Define "fake". If you falsify documents there may be assorted penalties. But if each plane is owned by a different dummy corporation with a stupid name, that's perfectly legal so long as you are not using these [legal] structures to avoid prosecution for a crime. That is, if you're flying the planes within the law, paying all your taxes and so on, then your use of a funny and even deceptive corporate naming scheme is not in any way illegal. There are legitimate reasons for such secrecy, such as developing

      • I'm fairly sure the FBI is allowed to create as many fake companies as it needs to do its job. This is different from a company/individual actor, as going undercover is a legitimate FBI role. Now, they probably register the company, just so it will be more realistic...

    • How is this insightful? How do you think Microsofts birds eye view on Bing map works? Did you think they used birds?
    • A very large number of airplanes are registered to LLCs in Delaware. Is that "fake enough" for you?

    • Nope. Providing the companies were setup correctly, and the flight plans were filed correctly you're good to go. This is regularly done by private companies, not just for mapping but also for surveying services, and cities enforcing zoning laws. You can even subscribe to services that will send you regular high-resolution footage or commission companies to take footage for you when you want.

      The only question is, how much money do you have?

  • ... on the tingoil hat.

    Of course, to be even remotely effective it will have to be opaque to visible and infrared AND using it will have to be common enough that:

    * lots of "uninteresting" people are wearing them at "interesting" events, and
    * there are enough opaque-to-iR-and-visible light tents and shelters that it is common for the spooks to "lose tracking" when you go under the shade with other people and not be able to tell who is who when you lgo back out.

    I don't see that first condition being met anyti

  • I think we all know that our governments are collecting our data on everyone in every way possible. I'm surprised they are using planes. Just use the cameras in People's cell phones. In Canada the RCMP mine cell phone data and we have planes patrolling Toronto in evenings. And to those playing Pokemon Go, you think the gaming companies are the only ones using that data you send during your hunts? This is beyond what I ever imagined after reading 1984. I think even Orwell would be surprised: People installin

    • I think we all know that our governments are collecting our data on everyone in every way possible. I'm surprised they are using planes. Just use the cameras in People's cell phones.

      If cellular phones were as powerful as desktop computers, then you could do that. The user would never notice. But they aren't. The user will notice the phone shitting itself as it tries to do three things at once, and probably reboot it.

    • You don't need to install pokemon onto a phone for the tracking to occur. They have the data they want with or without pokemon go.

  • In the U.S., police are restricted in the "searches" they can conduct without a warrant. They may conduct "reasonable" searches without a warrant because our Constitution protects against "unreasonable" searches. The police may observe activity with their eyes from the street or other public place. Technology raises other issues. The Supreme Court found it "unreasonable" to use an infrared camera to look at houses to see which ones had excess heat to identify houses that were growing marijuana and using hot

  • Oh, so they released footage taken from the supposedly non-existent planes?

    The planes that they denied existed until they were forced to admit that they were in fact real and conducting surveillance of American cities?

    You mean those planes?

  • With so much surveillance technology being deployed I wonder if any has ever been used to spot taggers in progress. I see lots of cameras being deployed everywhere, there is also lots of youtube footage of all kinds of crazy stuff but none (at least I haven't found any) of graffiti taggers in progress. I see bridges and signs with extremely difficult access all marked up, I'm amazed they manage to reach these places and return safely instead of going splat in the middle lanes of a freeway.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Close