Slashdot Mirror


Spysats Keeping Watch on the U.S.

Anonymous And Slightly Nervous Coward writes "USA Today is carrying an AP story that claims three years' worth of domestic satellite surveillance courtesy of a DoD agecy called the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Their work includes getting cooperation from entities pointing cameras onto private property such as hotels (all you HOPE and Defcon attendees, please wave for the camera). The agency seems to be taking the aw-shucks line on what they know and to what extent they evaluate the data they get, but it's clear that their mandate is seriously overpowering the oversight structures that would normally be watching it."

9 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. NIMAR? by andy1307 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency used to be called the National imagery and mapping agency reston. The just changed the name of the agency some time in the last 6 months. I work very close to this agency in Northern Virginia. Before 9/11, you couldn't distinguish this building from any other office block. Post 9/11, there are armed guards and security checkpoints.

    1. Re:NIMAR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Drop the "R" from the title, it was just NIMA. Never understood why they changed the title, but their site is still at www.nima.mil.

  2. Re:Huh? by kmmatthews · · Score: 3, Informative
    Not the sats themselves, rather the hotels internal security cameras.

    spam me at krism@mailsnare.net .. please! i'm training my spam filter <g>

    --
    feh. stuff.
  3. Might be a nice time to mention... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...some of the ways we benefit from the work of the NGA:

    National Map (National Map Viewer)

    (and the somewhat related National Atlas)

  4. Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry to Nitpick... The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). They just got the new name late last year. For those who really care, this agency used to be known as the Defence Mapping Agency prior to 1996.

  5. Re:Don't see much threat to privacy here... by Staos · · Score: 2, Informative

    If by satellite, you mean "cessna at 2000 feet with a guy taking pictures out the window", then yes, they have been offering them. Ever wondered why there were no clouds in ANY of the images?

    --
    In Soviet russia, only old Koreans profit from pictures of Natalie Portman stored on Beowulf Clusters.
  6. Re:duh by tsg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Repeat after me: "You have no right to privacy in public." (especially when you are outdoors)

    *sigh* That you have a reduced expectation of privacy does not mean you have no right to privacy and doesn't mean the government has the right to record every move you make simply because you left your house.

    --
    People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
  7. Re:That's fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You seem to forget that the NeoConservative Branch of the Republican Party have neutered the original FOIA, and replaced it with their new, Evil-Approved(TM) FOIA, which stands for "F--- Off, Idealistic American!"

    If you haven't seen any FOIA results recently, 80% of each page is blackened and unreadable. Apparently the words "the", "and", and "of" are the only three words in the English language that are not a threat to "national security".

    Let alone supposedly public documents, like the 9-11 Commission, with its' nearly 30 full pages of Bush-Saudi royal family connections redacted by the Oval Office.

    And don't get me started on Bush's brainwave of shredding all Presidential papers so they can never become public knowledge.

  8. Re:Put it to good use by smclean · · Score: 2, Informative
    Personally, though I'm no fan of aerial surveillance, I think that the Supreme Court made the logical call here; I believe that the rights of a law agency to surveillance without a warrant are more of less the same as the common citizenry.

    If looking into a private residence with thermal imaging devices were legal, every pervert in the world would be spending their evenings legally looking in to all the 13 year old girls' bedrooms.

    On the other hand, aerial surveillance can't really be illegal, because (civilian) pilots can't help but see down on to private property, so they can't simply make it illegal.

    In this case, the courts worked along the line of thought that government agencies have no more right to violate privacy than the common citizens unless they can provide probable cause, and as long as they support that precept I support them.

    --

    "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."