Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spysats Keeping Watch on the U.S.

Posted by michael on from the can't-read-license-plates-yet dept.

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."

13 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. That's fine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the information here is so aw-shucks and harmless, then getting it released to the public under the FOIA should be easy. That way we can all benefit from it.

    1. Re:That's fine. by John+Murdoch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this day and age, I think it is a good thing that the government in general, and the military (especially the National Guard) in particular, has mapped the locations of plants that produce particularly toxic gases. In the event of a catastrophe, merging the geo-spatial data with up-to-date information from the National Weather Service would be crucial to determining dispersal patterns and what populations would be affected. ("Affected" in the hazmat industry usually means "killed.")

      Similarly, I think it would extremely useful for the government to identify the locations of, and easiest access to, where transcontinental fiber-optic links cross the Mississippi River.

      I can think of no good reason for Joe Public to know--at the detail of lat/lon--that kind of information. Because Joe Public might just be thinking about mischief, and knowing that kind of information might give him all the help he needed.

      What the military is doing is a good thing
      They're capturing geo-spatial data. That's geography--where stuff is located. They're looking at stuff that the USGS is not looking at (the USGS looks for polling places, churches, schools, and radio towers--they do not identify or catalog hazmat locations or high-voltage power lines). That makes a lot of sense to me--somebody should be looking at this.

      The article? Note the source: the Federation of American Scientists. They're generally regarded as a left wing group that is deeply suspicious of the military. Note the tenor of the comments from the one source in the article: deeply suspicious of the military--to the point of thinking that geo-spatial mapping could be used for personal surveillance. Um, not.

      In sum, I think the FAS is getting lathered up over a misunderstanding of what the program is doing. Not every small Defense department project is a secret conspiracy.

      ...Unless, of course, they're verifying the information by flying around in Little Black Helicopters. 8-)

  2. duh by Necron69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Seriously, which three of you didn't already think the goverment was doing this?

    - Necron69

    1. Re:duh by randyflood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, But there is this law that says that the Defense Department is not allowed to spy on Us Citizens on US soil... I'm not saying that we should have a *right* to privacy in public. But, at the same time, why should we pay our tax dollars to have the military spy on US citicens, when they could be looking for terrorists?

      We carefully create intelligence oversight rules because we want to be sure that the military doesn't abuse its power to conduct intelligence operations against US citizens. Remember, that we entrust the governement with power and authority to conduct these operations for specific purposes. It may very well be that in this case the power is not being abused at all. However, we should always carefully scrutinize these kind of issues. It is better to be safe than sorry...

      --
      Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
    2. Re:duh by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The key difference here is they got involved *AFTER* the attacks reached a certain level. Not before.

      And don't forgot all the extra manpower didn't do squat. All the roadblocks, inconvenience, and hassle imposed on everybody didn't catch the snipers. They were caught because a CITIZEN noticed something unusual at the rest stop in MD and reported it to the proper authorities. Normal disclosure of suspect vehicle description was all that ended up being required.

      And yes I live in Fairfax


      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  3. Don't see much threat to privacy here... by RCulpepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mapquest and Terraserver et al have been offering up USGS satellite photos for years. What they're proposing to do here is not a more intensive form of surveillance, but a more complete job of mapping. All the information retreived by this system, AFAIK, would just be used to construct, say, 3D models of public buildings and cities, all of which information is easily available to the average pedestrian.

    --
    Always a godfather; never a god. -Gore Vidal
  4. Re:Not worried about this.... by drudd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should care because the definition of what you should and shouldn't be doing can always be changed.

    Doug

    --
    Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
  5. Here's why I care by DanielMarkham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand that when I am in a public venue I have no right to privacy. I think everybody understands that.

    But what bothers me is that I am losing my anonynimity. The founding fathers never thought this one through, because there were no such things as databases that could keep images of all public spaces, faces, and events and allow cross-checking. That bothers me. If I decide to go down to the visit some local political nut-job to hear what they have to say, I don't expect to be catalogued and cross-referenced, even though I am performing a public act.

    No, I have nothing to hide. And yes, I understand that everybody is nice and the government is here to help me. But last I checked, our system of government in the USA was not built upon "Aw Shucks", but a system of checks and balances that assumed that power corrupts. We seem to be forgetting this somehow.

    1. Re:Here's why I care by Sheepdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I understand that when I am in a public venue I have no right to privacy. I think everybody understands that.

      I don't.

      I don't understand what it is about the ninth amendment that the US Government fails to comprehend. I have a right to privacy. I would *hope* that would mean that I have a right to not have any identifying information stored in a public record if I did not desire such.

      If they suspect me of a crime, then by God, they should charge me with one. Not follow me around till I forget to signal when making a left turn. Speaking of which, why the hell do the ninth and tenth amendments never get mentioned and are repeatedly ignored? Ambiguity? What sane person could possibly imagine having your name in any database without his or her knowledge would not be a violation of their privacy?

  6. Re:nothing new by inKubus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    GIS is amazing stuff. There are a number of great trade publications that can be had for free.

    Here you can subscribe to a few for free.

    Makes great bathroom reading material. Where this stuff really begins to shine is melding of a bunch of data into a 3-d model, as you've said. Take a aerial photo of a street, add other ground photos with accurate location metadata and a standard map for wireframing.

    Then take a live video feed from a known point (or multiple points) and you can accurately transpose any movement onto a 3-d model for accurate viewing at any angle. Sort of like that fake first down line they have on football.

    Multiply it by every camera at every hotel, etc, instantly accessable by unique URL and you have an "Enemy of the State" scenario actually becoming possible. That's the road this stuff is all headed. I think it will be wonderful for security and marketing but I don't really see any useful characteristics for the common man, besides navigation. I could be wrong however.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  7. Whose watching them? by eseiat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the article the following quotes appear: The agency is not interested in information on U.S. citizens, stresses Americas office director Bert Beaulieu. "We couldn't care less about individuals and people and companies," he said. But that's not good enough for secrecy expert Steven Aftergood, who oversees a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists. "What it all boils down to is 'Trust us. Our intentions are good,'" he said. Considering my trust of the "good intentions" of spy satellite division of the government isn't exactly at a stellar magnitude, I want to know who is overseeing this group? Are there any regulations on this group and if so, who creates those? I'm not concerned due to any paranoia, I just want to know how much authority this group really has.

  8. Re:Not worried about this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its a sad commentary on the ignorance of Americans that you have to explain why Stalinist surveillence is dangerous...

  9. I'd rather that they... by MacFury · · Score: 5, Insightful
    when they could be looking for terrorists...

    I'd rather the US government stop creating terrorists. Then we wouldn't have to go looking for them.