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."

Comments

nothing new

[BWJones]

"Spysats" have always watched the U.S. starting with the very first Corona flights going on to the KH series from the 60's until the latest KH-12/13 Improved Crystal series. This is absolutely nothing new with organizations like the National Geospatial-Intelligence agency, that National Reconnaissance Office, the National Imaging and Mapping Agency and CIA having long standing contracts and plans to surveil regions within the boundaries of the U.S..

When I was the subject of a recruiting effort in college for an un-named agency one of the things we discussed was merging of data modalities that would be far more powerful than capabilities then in place with the SR-71. These modalities were developed in urban areas within the U.S. such as Los Angeles and New York and a most public example was that one could see directly the collection of these data here in Salt Lake City at the last winter Olympics. Overflights of both aircraft and satellites to capture visual data, background radiation readings and other data were used in urban planning for placement of services, sniper teams, counter sniper teams and other responders. Teams were scouring this town taking images for overlay onto satellite data to build 3D models for all sorts of planning, so, yeah this is nothing new.

What I am surprised at is how little folks know about the geospatial imaging community. It is a huge growth industry and the software that I currently use has been cobbled together from three different sources that most commonly runs on a variety of platforms from Solaris, to IRIX to Linux and Windows. I would love to see some of the code recompiled to run on OS X as some of the first code for geospatial imaging I ever saw ran on NeXTstep, not to mention that OS X is an ideal OS for this community. PCIGeomatics, ESRI, RSI etc..... are you listening?

Re:nothing new

[inKubus]

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.

Re:nothing new

[Amiga Lover]

I'm sure I speak for a few people here - does anyone have links to images from some of the higher quality satellite pics? I've seen some from the early 90s where it's obviously easy to tell which cars are sedans, station wagons, their colour, maybe even model if you know them well enough. I hadn't seen anything better, lately.

Anyone?

Re:nothing new

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Actually, the first few used film, which was chuted back to earth. Other than initial tests, I'd be shocked if they were wasting film to snoop on the citizens, when they had less capacity than they'd like to spy on the commies.

Only with the advent of sending video/image data back over RF do I think it likely they might have been tempted to spy on us.

But some of the most obvious things aren't being considered here. Do you think they'd stop at watching us, when they could plausibly listen too? We've all seen the spy supply catalogs that use laser microphones, that measure the vibrations in a pane of glass, haven't we? I'm wondering if they have one precise enough to aim at a residence or office window, and listen in. They might only be able to capture a minute or so, before the angle became wrong, but still...

Re:nothing new

[Tackhead]

> 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.

You typed the word "navigation". Was that some sort of newfangled abbreviation or typo for "best massively-multiplayer online first-person shooter evah?" :)

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:nothing new

[chill]

But some of the most obvious things aren't being considered here. Do you think they'd stop at watching us, when they could plausibly listen too? We've all seen the spy supply catalogs that use laser microphones, that measure the vibrations in a pane of glass, haven't we? I'm wondering if they have one precise enough to aim at a residence or office window, and listen in. They might only be able to capture a minute or so, before the angle became wrong, but still...

I strongly doubt it, not from satellites, anyway. The angle would almost ALWAYS be wrong. Not to mention being able to aim a laser that precisely from the sat AND bounce it back off a medium designed to be tranparent, with enough strength to read it, etc.

Not cost effective at all, unless it was a permanent location they wanted to bug -- like an embassy or federal building. Even then, there are easier and more cost effective ways.

Re:nothing new

[Gordonjcp]

I saw a satellite photo taken over the West End of Glasgow on the 21st of August, 2001 at around 1300 - coincidentally the day after I bought a new (old) Mercedes estate. I was out in the work van that day, and dropped by my house to get a bit of lunch. In the image you can clearly see, in its 1 pixel-per-metre resolution, a five-pixel-by-two-pixel beigey-coloured blob, and a five-pixel-by-two-pixel white blob, right outside my house... Pale gold Merc and white van, parked nose to nose.

Re:nothing new

[traveyes]

...more powerful than capabilities then in...

First time ever seen (correctly) on /.

.

Re:nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, heresay, but this story comes from a close friend in the DC area whom I trust and I really doubt was pulling my leg. Happened in the early 90's.

My friend's a smoker and has been for years. However, he did his damnest to hide it from his parents. For a couple of summers in college he got a job as a roofer. One day his father point-blank confronted him about smoking. He adamently denied it up and down. In a rage, his father threw down an overhead glossy print with my friend taking a smoke break ontop of someone's roof.. with his pack of Malboros circled with a grease pen. His father was civilian spysat spook (now retired). He caught major hell for weeks.

Re:nothing new

[IrishMASMS]

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGI) = National Imaging and Mapping Agency (NIMA)

One of the goverment funding bills last year changed the name from NIMA to NGA. Did you not see the /. post about this? ;)

Re:nothing new

[PurpleFloyd]

Maybe your friend was telling the truth, but there are ways other than spy satellites that said information could be obtained. First, it would be cheaper, easier and give better resolution to simply take an aerial photograph. A Cessna 172 (the ISO standard Generic Civilian Aircraft) and a decent 35 mm camera could take a crystal-clear shot of someone working on a roof, while a spysat would probably have difficulty resolving the logo on a pack of cigs. Also, spysat time is expensive and valuable; time in a small airplane is fairly cheap, or even free if the pilot's a friend.

Finally, even if it was a satellite snapshot, there's no way of telling if it really was your friend in the picture. For all you know, your friend's dad took a picture of a roofer in Russia taking a smoke break, then learned of your friend's smoking a different way and confronted him with the "evidence".

I imagine spysats are tightly controlled, and I know there are people who would raise major hell if they were used to spy on the US. I can't imagine that the people in charge of these things would risk the information getting out just so a coworker could watch his kid misbehaving.

Re:nothing new

[Modesitt]

It's abbreviated NGA, not NGI.

The reason for the name change was so they could be taken more seriously in the intelligence community. 3 letter agencys > 4 letter agencys.

No, I'm not making this up.

Re:nothing new

[Xaoswolf]

I'm guessing it's possible, but the laser required would probably melt the window...

Re:nothing new

[jo42]

> "Spysats" have always watched the U.S.

This is why we need billboard sized posters of the goatse dude on the roofs of our houses, vans and SUVs to "Give It To The Man"...

Nothing to see

[WPIDalamar]

Weird... first 3 times I tried to load this story, I saw
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."

with no story.

Conspiracy? I think so.

Re:Nothing to see

[Nuclear Elephant]

I've noticed that myself, I suspect the /. folks are trying to get people to actually RTFA before posting.

That's fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's fine.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Just because they are not using it maliciously doesn't mean that some of the data is not sensitive.

The problem is (as with most classified data) the collectors are the ones doing the classifying. "It's classified because I say it is."

Re:That's fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they are not using it maliciously doesn't mean that some of the data is not sensitive.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If they don't trust the public to not use the data maliciously, then why should the public trust them to not use the data maliciously?

Re:That's fine.

[YrWrstNtmr]

You trust the bank not to use your credit card maliciously. Would you be so trusting of the general public with that same info?

Re:That's fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:That's fine.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

You trust the bank not to use your credit card maliciously.

You must be kidding. Banks cheat, make errors and generaly try to steal from the customers at every opportunity with "transaction fees", mysterious interest rate changes etc. No. I dont trust the bank with my money. Similiarly, no governmental body can be trusted and has to be constantly monitored. That is why very wise men came up with the "separation of powers" and "oversight" ideas. Apparently though, their wisdom is becoming more and more fit for the "pearls before swine" addage.

Re:That's fine.

[YrWrstNtmr]

And still you trust the bank more that you would the general public.

Hell, yes, there should be oversight on this. But that does not mean that any and all information gathered should be releasable under the FOIA.
Would you trust the general public with the design and operating parameters of the defensive measures on Air Force One? "We paid for it...release it under the FOIA!"

Remember what general public means. Not just you (presumably trustable) and me (presumably trustable), but all those others who are not trustable, and who would use that information maliciously.

Re:That's fine.

[John Murdoch]

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-)

Re:That's fine.

[Azghoul]

Nice try, but they're not all exempt. Christ, the breathless "Some spoooooky agency" shit is ridiculous on this one.

NGA is just NIMA is just DMA. Been around for decades, big whip. And the best part is, they buy plenty of their imagery from COMMERCIAL companies like Digital Globe. Whee!

Re:That's fine.

[TheTray]

I trust my bank enough, because they are a seperate entity not a governing body. Thus I have the power. I can take my money elsewhere. You may argue that the bank could take all of my money. Well no they can't as the government is insuring my bank. You ask then why can't I trust the government because I don't have the power. Yes I can vote for another person but even still once voted in I have no direct control. At a moments notice I can't say sorry I don't like you, good bye. Which is as it should be. Then again there is a little logic in the question why can I trust anyone. Truth is I can't trust my bank nor my government. I happen to be a betting man, so far my life has been okay and I expect it to stay that way. To rephrase... I can trust my bank because of the governments control/insurance. I can reasonably control what I can see from the government. The government restricting of my bank is going to be very much open. Thus I have atleast some control. If it were a government bank I would be screwed as I have NO direct control of my government.

Re:That's fine.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Would you trust the general public with the design and operating parameters of the defensive measures on Air Force One?

There is a loooong way from the defense systems of a presidential jet to pictures of your neighbourhood. FOIA was made so that the natural lust every securocracy on the planet has, a self-important desire to expand control and power until it turns into a clone of Gestapo, is kept in check. After 9-11 all of these balances seem to have been removed wholesale. Call me paranoid but I do foresee serious trouble ahead, one could argue a threat far more serious then what Al-Queida could have managed by itself.

Re:That's fine.

[YrWrstNtmr]

There is a loooong way from the defense systems of a presidential jet to pictures of your neighbourhood.

Sure. Pics of your neighborhood should be FOIA. I used a similar one from Terraserver(?) to draw my backyard, and to design a deck/patio. But, as I said in my original, not all images collected by these guys should be. The hard part is defining what is and isn't.

Detailed overhead pics of your neighborhood? Sure. Detailed overhead pics of a nuclear powerplant? That's a different story.

Re:That's fine.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Detailed overhead pics of your neighborhood? Sure. Detailed overhead pics of a nuclear powerplant? That's a different story.

Setting aside the discussion of usefulness of such censorship (a kite+camera, etc), the problem is that the ever greedy for power securocracy uses the excuse of nuclear power plant to classify all pictures. Because they might contain something secret. They will decide what that is but wont tell you. This is a classic cop-out of a tyrannical police-state aparatus.

Re:That's fine.

[Woody77]

Actually, the stuff you're listing is exactly the kind of thing that people NEED to know about. If you're downwind of a plant during prevailing winds, that affects housing prices, and also affects emergency response planning.

The local FD sure as hell wants to know as much as possible about HazMat sources and how the wind blows/water flows in an area.

Things get especially nasty in valleys, where the wind blows up it during the day, and down it at night, changing mid-afternoon/early-morning or so, because then you need to plan out both scenarios AND how to deal with the change in wind.

I'm a volunteer FF in a small town (10K people) in a valley, we're an all-volunteer dept, and the county GIS data is crucial for us for planning purposes, but we also back it up with USGS, our own surveys of where hazmat is stored (both legally and illegally) and our own data on locations of hydrants, weight-limits on bridges, and widths of roads for getting fire engines up into the VERY narrow, tight turns around redwood trees.

This kind aerial photography, coupled with 10' accuracy USGS data (too bad it's only 40', which is laughable in our terrain, as it's much more convoluted), and with our own county GIS (property lines, zoning, roads) data, all in-cab and we'd have a HELL of a better time dealing with stuff.

Even better if we could get live sat imagery (even within last 30 minutes would be good) for location of fires, especially at night.

Trying to locate a wildland fire you can see, but it's off on some other ridge/valley is a major PITA, especially at night.

they laughed at me

[WormholeFiend]

when I put tinfoil all over the roof of my house... but who's laughing now?

Re:they laughed at me

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. You've just made it all nice and shiny so we can see it better.

And could you do us a favor? Put on a shirt when you go out to empty the mailbox. You're really scaring us.

Re:they laughed at me

[jrod2027]

when I put tinfoil all over the roof of my house... but who's laughing now?

We are. At you.

Re:they laughed at me

[Pig Hogger]

Me, I didn't take any chances. I put some plywood, some tar paper and finally, some shingling.

You're never too careful.

Re:they laughed at me

[ReTay]

Haven't you figured it out yet *THEY* started that story because it makes your house stand out. That way they can give you more personal attention.........

Huh?

[over_exposed]

... pointing cameras onto private property such as hotels...

How exactly do spy satellites see into hotels? HOPE is (at least when I went two times ago) was INSIDE the hotel. The only ones in fear of being seen by the sats would be the smokers and the stage crew moving crap all day...

Re:Huh?

[kmmatthews]

Not the sats themselves, rather the hotels internal security cameras.

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

Re:Huh?

[TykeClone]

It's those evil smokers that they're after!

Re:Huh?

[AoT]

But we just smoked in the stairwell at HOPE. Luckily we were only on the rook at night; they can't ID you from your infrared signature, can they?

Re:Huh?

[ArsonSmith]

I get it now. Ever notice that the more satellites that are launched the less smokers there are?

Hmmm, coincidences or conspiracy?

Re:Huh?

[TykeClone]

In all seriousness, I think that they can. I remember seeing somewhere that the heat signature on your face was as good of an identifier as a fingerprint.

Re:Huh?

[AoT]

ooh, i found it.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EApmzc4jwQAJ: ww w.math.tau.ac.il/~hezy/papers/c27.PDF+infrared+ide ntification+of+people&hl=en

hopefully I wasn't looking up too much off the roof. It sounds like its pretty good at Iding people.

huh?

[minus_273]

"but it's clear that their mandate is seriously overpowering the oversight structures that would normally be watching it."
reading the article i dont know how it is CLEAR anything is happening. could the poster explain how anything is clear.

duh

[Necron69]

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

Re:duh

[garcia]

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

Slippery slope. Yeah, we have "no right" to privacy in public. Yeah, we know that the government and Major League Baseball have been spying on us for years from the eyes in the skies... What I want to know is what we are doing to stop them from continuing their infiltration into our personal lives that we live behind closed doors.

Re:duh

[jrod2027]

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

And especially if you're an attractive woman that likes to leave her curtains open.

Re:duh

[twiddlingbits]

"What I want to know is what we are doing to stop them from continuing their infiltration into our personal lives that we live behind closed door"... Haven't you lined the inside of your roof with tinfoil or lead yet? It works great on those thought sensors the Sattelites have now. The lining will also stop the mind-control rays the aliens are using to get you to buy the things you see on the Home Shopping Network. I haven't bought a thing from HSN or had any visitors from three letter Government agencies in a long time.

Re:duh

[LostCluster]

What I want to know is what we are doing to stop them from continuing their infiltration into our personal lives that we live behind closed doors.

There are major chains of stores operating under names such as "Home Depot" and "Lowes" that carry state-of-the-art camera blocking devices such as roofing tiles and window shades...

Re:duh

[sevinkey]

What I want to know is what we are doing to stop them from continuing their infiltration into our personal lives that we live behind closed doors.

Something tells me it's not voting republican :)

(disclaimer: joke about marriage amendment... not trying troll)

Re:duh

[cynic10508]

There are major chains of stores operating under names such as "Home Depot" and "Lowes" that carry state-of-the-art camera blocking devices such as roofing tiles and window shades...

Well, crap. Now that someone's said something I'm sure these chain stores will be sued under the DMCA...

Re:duh

[randyflood]

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...

Re:duh

[tsg]

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.

Re:duh

[garcia]

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?

Because the public is happy to be lumped into the same group as the terrorists.

Re:duh

[broller]

Haven't you lined the inside of your roof with tinfoil or lead yet?

I've done this of course, but I've gone one step further. When I heard about that Fluoride stuff the government puts in our water, I replaced all of my indoor plumbing with lead pipes to help counter the effects. Nothing's getting into MY mind!

Did you know that they don't even SELL lead pipes for home plumbing anymore? That's how bad this is people!

Re:duh

[peachpuff]

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

Truth through repetition is bad for the brain.

If you're in public, you can certainly be looked at by the other people around you, but that doesn't mean you have no right to privacy at all. Should the government be randomly stopping people on the street and checking their pockets, or maybe strip-searching them? Should anyone who speaks in public be forced to answer questions about their medical history? No? I guess there is some privacy in public after all.

There is reduced privacy in public because there has to be; the whole point is that a bunch of people are all out there together, and they can't be expected to close their eyes. I don't see any reason to extend that to people who use special equipment to watch invisibly from miles away.

Re:duh

[chill]

1. My back yard, surrounded by the 7' privacy fence is not public yet open to scrutiny by these types of devices.

2. Define "public". How about in your car, parked in a public street? Not in many locations. I remember a legal case in NYC where a couple was arrested for having sex in their car "in public". The courts ruled that the closed doors on the car constituted a "reasonable expectation of privacy" so "public" indecency laws didn't apply.

How about "Illegal search and seizure". Yeah, no seizure here but a picture that good might constitute "illegal search".

-Charles

Re:duh

[Mycroft999]

You are assuming of course that anything you do is of any interest to anyone.

Re:duh

[Realistic_Dragon]

If you line your roof with lead the only three letter agency that comes to visit will be the EPA.

Re:duh

[St. Arbirix]

What I want to know is what we are doing to stop them from continuing their infiltration into our personal lives that we live behind closed doors.

I'm sorry, can you give me examples? Start with the "continuing" part.

Re:duh

[pixelpusher220]

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

Re:duh

[TykeClone]

And that's the one that you'd least like a visit from.

Re:duh

[ReTay]

I haven't bought a thing from HSN or had any visitors from three letter Government agencies in a long time.

That is because they consider that a hostile act. Now they are watching you through scopes as you have elevated yourself from the suspicion level of they are sure you are doing something they won't approve of. To they know you are up to something now. You will see when they get the people to understand that nothing is more important the security you will be the first in line for a body cavity check.......

Re:duh

[Tassach]

Most of us, who ,upto that point were very protective of our right to privacy, were very happy to have big brother looking for the sniper

You don't drive a white van, do you?

Re:duh

[jeif1k]

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

Why exactly shouldn't I have a right to privacy in my own backyard?

Re:duh

[kin_korn_karn]

Oh, you're quoting the Constitution. how quaint.

The Uniform Commercial Code has superceded the Constitution for the past 50 years. Get with the program.

Re:duh

[Halthar]

Unfortunately, wearing roofing tiles and/or window shades is more than likely going to make you stand out in a crowd a bit more than normal. They also tend to pinch, kinda like wearing poorly made, or unpadded, armor.

Re:duh

[garcia]

You are assuming of course that anything you do is of any interest to anyone.

I'm not assuming anything. I am basing my opinions on the laws that have been hastily created to make sure we are "protected" by our friendly government officials from those evil terrorists.

Re:duh

[admiralh]

I guess you're making sure that the Communists aren't going to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids.

Now, how about some rainwater and grain alcohol, General Ripper?

Re:duh

[hachete]

There used to be a time when three people could meet in plain sight and not be accused of conspiracy. Seems to me this happened a lot before the advent of the means of surveillance.

They're wasting our money.

h.

Re:duh

[GussT]

There seems to be a difference between being outside on your own private property and being in public.

Re:duh

[SydShamino]

. Repost again...

You don't get to be "private" in public, per se, but I do feel it is important that you be able to be "anonymous" in many cases.

"So, how can you be anonymous when you have a license plate?" you might ask.

Simple, there are 300 million people in the country and, at any given time, no one -cares- to read your plate and track where you are. If you commit a crime, or if someone with a similar car committed a crime, then sure, a police officer might see your car and check your plates. But, if they don't match, the officer will move on. The event is eventually forgotten and there is no "proof" that the event ever happened.

Cameras that record change that. 25 years from now, someone can go back to a camera and see who passed in front of it last night. This where anonymity is lost.

Let's assume you buy pr0n from a shop. Your license plate is visible to all who care to look, but again, -no one cares-. Now add a "911 cam" with a tape recorder, and, at a later date or with the use of more computers, the names of every person who ever visited the store can be retrieved. There goes your political career.

Let's assume you go to church. Again, outside of the church itself -no one cares-. But, add a camera, and the government knows everyone who visted a certain mosque, ever. Or, they know everyone who attended mass last weekend.

In summary, yes, if there is reason to care, the government can already track you in public. But this takes the efforts of a human, which means it is rare, costly, and, most importantly, not permanent. Eliminate human involvement from the monitoring and it becomes routine, pervasive, and, worst of all, permanent.

Re:duh

[susano_otter]

Why exactly shouldn't I have a right to privacy in my own backyard?

Why exactly should you have a right to privacy anywhere?

Re:duh

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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

Well then you wont mind when i decide to sit down right next to you and your girlfriend in the park, recording everything you say, speaking over you, hitting on your girlfriend, eating your food, farting, and basically doing whatever i dam please.

I personally think we all have a right to privacy no matter where we are, if we desire it. Otherwise, why try to respect each others personal space in public? Because we assume that we enjoy our personal privacy and do not want others to intrude.

Sure you could find a nice spot in the park that is a little more private and folks could still look at you... but you've chosen a place that suits your desires for a little privacy in an open public place. Folks could still observe your doings but any decent person would respect your wishes even in an open public area such as a park.

However, public areas are not private, you are certainly correct. I just hope we dont get to the point where we cant expect a little privacy in an open area.

The government may want to take away our privacy, and you may be willing to give it away... just dont assume others are as willing.

Re:duh

[Moofie]

If that's true, why is so much money being spent on systems to surveil the American populace at large?

If they're not interested in me, why are they watching?

Re:duh

[TeraCo]

Well then you wont mind when i decide to sit down right next to you and your girlfriend in the park, recording everything you say, speaking over you, hitting on your girlfriend, eating your food, farting, and basically doing whatever i dam please.

Oh, I'm sure he will mind, in fact, he'll probably go somewhere else. But if you follow him, you're no longer invading his privacy, you are stalking, which is something completely different!

Re:duh

[theLOUDroom]

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

But what about when you're on your own land, surrounded by ten acres of forest?

Don't you think you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy then?
IMO, we need to pass some privacy laws concerning aerial photography, and satellite imagery. I'm not saying ban it outright, but aerial imagery of another's PRIVATE property should be severely limited.

Re:duh

[Oligonicella]

1. Bullshit. If I set up a tower sufficiently tall enough, I can look over your fence.

2. That's NY, not the entire US.

No it would not. See my response to 1.

Re:duh

[Xaoswolf]

Well, closing said door should work rather nicely at keeping those pesky spy sat's from looking at you...

Re:duh

[Xaoswolf]

1. My back yard, surrounded by the 7' privacy fence is not public yet open to scrutiny by these types of devices.

7' doesn't help if your neighbor adds a second floor to their house, or even puts up a tree houlse for their kid, then there are those darn basketball players or that pesky news helicoptor...

What you need is a privacy fence with a privacy roof. Otherwise, it's only private to ground level people

Re:duh

[duddles]

No right to privacy in public eh? So you wouldn't have any objection to being followed by a government agent every time you left your house? Why is this different?

Re:duh

[scottv67]

>What makes you so sure that these devices will shield your privacy from infrared cameras? Cops already have devices that they can use to see through walls. Why are you so sure these types of devices aren't already floating in space pointed towards the earth?


Three words:

1) Insulate
2) Your
3) Attic

-s :^)

Bloom County Reference

[Shadow Wrought]

I remember Opus worrying about this when Milo told him that there were Satellites that could see you doing those private unmentionable things. Opus ended up on the cover of USA Today scratching his armpit the next day. Maybe we ought to track the number of pizza's ordered by the analysis centers when Defcon, Hope, and skin fests like the Oscars happen.

The answer

[Anonymous Coward]

"But who's laughing now?"

The Alcoa Corporation, makers of Reynolds Wrap.

Re:The answer

[Dr Caleb]

How many times do we have to tell you . . . they make Aluminum foil!!

Re:The answer

[Jucius Maximus]

" How many times do we have to tell you . . . they make Aluminum foil!!"

I actually do have a piece of aluminium (English spelling) foil in my wallet. It's spread in that little 'secret zipper compartment' at the back of the wallet, thus becoming the 'outer' layer of the closed wallet, aside from the leather of course.

Since I put it in a couple of months ago, I have flown on four domestic airline flights in the US and two international onces between the US and Canada and the security folks did not give me trouble for it at all. (They were more concerned with the metal in the zipper on my fly, and the security guy actually felt up my crotch at one US airport. That was after they whisked my shoes away for explosives-testing. Though this seemed to have nothing to do with the fact that I'm a brown guy, as this only happened after the wand-detectors kept alarming at those locations. And no, I did not wrap my thing in tinfoil.)

Re:The answer

[Kenshin]

Just keep that tin-foil filled with pop-corn, for when they get that orbital death laser working.

For all you conspiracy theorists...

[Aceto3for5]

This is basically The Sims for the NSA.

Next thing you know you'll feel compelled to take a swim, only later you'll notice the ladder has been removed...

Re:For all you conspiracy theorists...

[Zorilla]

Great, if I ever get taken in for questioning and the investigator says while holding up a photo, "Do you know this guy?" I'll just say, "Meshoono!"

Re:For all you conspiracy theorists...

[James_G]

This is basically The Sims for the NSA.

Sooo.. the NSA is watching us.. reading Penny Arcade, where Gabe is watching Tycho watching his Sim watch TV..

Hrnngh!

NIMAR?

[andy1307]

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.

Re:NIMAR?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:NIMAR?

[npdoty]

Yes, they used to be the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Before that, the mapping group was known (for quite some time) as the Defense Mapping Agency, and had less of the sattelite imagery stuff integrated with the creation of maps for military or other purposes. The stand-up of NIMA was, I believe, the combination of the Defense Mapping Agency with intelligence/imagery groups from the CIA -- the idea being that this information shouldn't be so distinct but that the two types of information are actually very similar and that there are many uses (as mentioned in the AP article) for that combination. The name change from NIMA to National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency was, I believe, for the most part a change in name. The agency wanted to emphasize again that it was an organization dealing with intelligence, with information and that it was information of a single type, not just the amalgam of imagery and mapping. An actual history (rather than just my reminiscences of my father's changing job titles) is available on the web: http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

Not only that!

[holzp]

But they spam my browser too!

Re:Perfectly Justified

[udowish]

If they want to watch me run around in my underwear so be it, I however, am not responsible for any cost incurred for couseling or psychiatric care :)

Watch me...

[sarah_kerrigan]

...and flee in terror!!! x'D

Okay, now I know I am being watched from space, by security cameras and by my busybody neighbour. Now I feel much better ;-)

Kisses
--

Re:Watch me...

[shotfeel]

But what's the probability of them actually paying attention or recording while you're being mugged vs. picking your nose?

Don't see much threat to privacy here...

[RCulpepper]

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.

Re:Don't see much threat to privacy here...

[Staos]

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?

Re:Don't see much threat to privacy here...

[slungsolow]

Ever wondered why there were no clouds in ANY of the images?

They usually provide the public with clearest of all of their satellite images. I am more than sure that they have their fair share of cloudy pictures that they would never send out to the public.

Re:Don't see much threat to privacy here...

[Quixotic137]

The point is that they are not satellite photos. They are taken from a plane. And most of them aren't that recent either.

Re:Not worried about this....

[drudd]

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

Doug

Re:Not worried about this....

[Frennzy]

not doing anything I shouldn't be doing, nor going anywhere I shouldn't be going

According to YOU you're not. What happens when the government decides differently? What if going to an AA meeting is suddenly grounds for a background check, and then that information is suddenly available to your employer, who doesn't want any 'freakin' alcoholics' on the payroll?

Or what about attending that civil-rights protest? Or the million man march? Or your wife/girlfriend/daughter going to an abortion clinic? See what I mean? Just assuming you aren't doing anything wrong doesn't mean that the gov can't decide otherwise.

Re:Not worried about this....

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

because it's the principle of the issue...if something you like to do became illegal for no good reason...or you felt it necessary to break the law to protect yourself, you wouldn't have as much freedom to act.

p.s. I have 6 gmail invites and only need 3 people to complete an offer. 1 offer completed == 2 invites for you.

Here's why I care

[DanielMarkham]

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.

Re:Here's why I care

[Sheepdot]

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?

Re:Here's why I care

[polecat_redux]

I don't understand what it is about the ninth amendment that the US Government fails to comprehend.

Perhaps they do comprehend the meaning of the ninth and tenth amendments. However, why should they care? What are we going to do, fire them?

This "democ-proxy" of ours assumes that the person who is best in line with what the public demands will, once elected, happily serve the interests of the society that put him in office. This rarely seems to be the case. Campaigning for office feels like little more than cramming for a mid-term the night before, only to forget half of what you learned once you pass the test. There's really very little reason for them to hold our interests in mind once they have seized power.

Re:Here's why I care

[Brandybuck]

The ninth ammendment does not specify a right to privacy. So in order for the ninth to protect it, it must be one of your pre-existing rights. Unfortunately, it isn't. At least not in the sense that most people think it is.

A natural right is one that does not require any coercion to utilize. You have the right to life because your act of living does not compel anyone. You have the right to free speech because your act of speaking does not compel anyone. But privacy is not so clear cut. Your right to privacy within your own home does not require any coercion. But is this a right distinct from your right of property? But what about your right to remain anonymous while in a public square? In order to activate this right you have to coerce others into secrecy. Therefore it is not a natural right. Barbara Streisand's habit of suing aerial photographers is not natural.

When you think it through, every natural right of privacy is merely an instance of a pre-existing property right. You have the right of privacy in your bedroom because you own (or are renting) your bedroom. You cannot expect the same level of privacy while sleeping in a public park. I think the very notion of a right to privacy is dangerous, because it implies that some "unnatural" rights should be accorded the same status as natural rights.

Re:Not worried about this....

[Giant Ape Skeleton]

Yeah, I guess you're right -- what if one day they outlaw going to work and going to the gym and going to the supermarket and going home! I will be in deep trouble indeed!

Typical media sensationalism

[Bull999999]

Roughly twice a month, the agency is called upon to help with the security of events inside the United States. Even more routinely, it is asked to help prepare imagery and related information to protect against possible attacks on critical sites.

I'm not saying that spying is good, but it'll take quite a bit before they can spy on all the Americans at the rate of twice a month.

Might be a nice time to mention...

[daveschroeder]

...some of the ways we benefit from the work of the NGA:

National Map (National Map Viewer)

(and the somewhat related National Atlas)

Re:Might be a nice time to mention...

[stevenwilkinson]

... also worth mentioning, they are releasing the US DNC catalog to the public for us sailing geeks. Now we just need some navigation software available to the public or a DNC -> ENC converter.

see:

Here for a free viewer(linux version available).
Here for a nice looking piece of Government only navigation software.

I hope they are at least watching the borders

[museumpeace]

Even Time mag. knows we are more wide open than any nation, having declared itself at war, has any reason to be. [time may or may not be money but Time wants your money to read past cover stories]

Re:Not worried about this....

[Giant Ape Skeleton]

What if going to an AA meeting is suddenly grounds for a background check, and then that information is suddenly available to your employer, who doesn't want any 'freakin' alcoholics' on the payroll?

They'd have to start by firing the entire Sales team!

license plates? try dirt

[spoonyfork]

I own one of four cars where I work that are the same make, model, year, color, and package. The only way I can tell them apart after a long day at work (when I forget exactly where I parked) is by looking at the dirt pattern. Each vehicle is distinctive -- except when washed, obviously.

If you don't want people looking in your windows..

[bhirsch]

Close them.

Whether or not you agree with the government doing this, feeling as if you are personally threatened by it is pretty unreasonable. The government has many high and low profile criminals to violate the rights of before they move on to the average citizen who may have some beliefs that are perceived as threatening to government or society.

That isn't to say we should ignore questionable acts on the part of our government, but we should be realistic about their implictions. The right to privacy is an important one, but that does not mean we should expect to never have to take steps to protect it ourselves.

Checks and balances?

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't go anywhere, dill-boy. You can still have congress look into the matter and the Supreme Court can still rule this unconstitutional.

They don't share your opinion you say? Well, then it must be corrupt!

Re:Checks and balances?

[DanielMarkham]

Checks and balances at the case-by-case, individual level. Of course the system still works overall, but that misses the point. Last I checked, everybody wasn't either deserving of data collection or not, it was much more complicated than that.

That's why the database itself may be perfectly fine if it is completely maintained by some independent organization not capable of criminal prosecution. Police can get warrants for specific information and have a judge review them. That's all I'm saying.

Making this into some kind of simplistic discussion doesn't do much for either side. There are some fairly smart people on /. -- I'm sure there are ways to make sure the need for security is balanced with the need to maintain individual sovreignty.

Re:Checks and balances?

[DanielMarkham]

I've got a lot of faith in political discourse. That's what makes us such a great country.

I'm not outraged, simply explaining why I care.

I see no special skills granted to senators and judges that the average man does not have, and my politics are my own business.

We'll work it out.

Re:Checks and balances?

[polecat_redux]

"You can still have congress look into the matter and the Supreme Court can still rule this unconstitutional.

The checks and balances of the US goverment only function properly when each of the 3 branches are normally honest and immune to collusion.

England

[mbbac]

Great, now we're turning into England. How long do you think it'll take before the United States surpases England as the country that spies the most on its own citizenry?

Re:England

[mamba-mamba]

Great, now we're turning into England. How long do you think it'll take before the United States surpases England as the country that spies the most on its own citizenry? [emphasis added]

DPRK? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

MM--

Re:England

[mbbac]

I read recently that England spies on its own citizens the most. I tried to find the article with Google and I had no luck. Maybe they meant of all of the democratic nations. I have a hard time believing that England spies on its citizens more than China. Still, it isn't pleasing.

Put it to good use

[TykeClone]

Use it to find and take care of meth labs.

Re:Put it to good use

[IceWing_mk1]

Well, actually there's starting to be precedent against high-tech surveillance technologies being employed in an invasive manner. A few months back, there was a case brought where a guy who was growing certain types of plants in his attic via the use of sun lamps was caught when a local LEO decided to scan the residence at night with a thermal imaging device. After the arrest of the grower, said grower brought suit, claiming it was a warrantless search, therefore inadmissible. The case went up the legal ladder to the Supreme Court, who decided that indeed, the use of the thermal imaging device violated the 4th Amendment Right's (Protection from Unlawful Search and Seizure) of the grower. Then, they turned around and said that aerial surveillance didn't need any such warrant. I'm not going to try and figure out the following, "In his discussion of the effect of the evolution of technology on privacy rights, Justice Scalia stated that technology enabling human flight has uncovered portions of the house and its curtilage that once were private. But, he held, the Kyllo case had to confront the limits on the power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy." So, somehow, the technology of a thermal imaging device breaks some line of technology which would allow for unauthorized observation into a person's home, and therefore requires a warrant, while a radio control helicopter with a wireless camera onboard, as it would constitute aerial surveillence, doesn't. Sometimes, I think that George, Tom and the rest of the gang must be spinning in their graves.

Re:Put it to good use

[smclean]

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.

This is why...

[eander315]

I have a EULA (End User License Agreement) specifically forbidding the use of any image(s) of me being used for commercial or government use taped to the top of my tin-foil hat.

your sig

[thentil]

Current death toll from Amnesty International's actions in Nepal: 9000

Mind explaining how, exactly, Amnesty International has a "death toll" attributale to their actions in Nepal?

kevin Mitnick Jr. is going to have a new toy

[cyfer2000]

kevin Mitnick Jr. is going to have a new toy, very powerful toy.

Most 1337!

[Fear the Clam]

For instance, the agency has modified basic maps of the nation's capital to highlight the location of hospitals, linking them to data on the number of beds or the burn unit in each

Obviously my mad Photoshop and HTML image map skillz are needed by our government. Later, RazorFish!

Re:well

[ArsonSmith]

your list is a good start but we really need to work on getting rid of all Republicans and Democrats. They have booth evolved into a two headed power grabbing group that with each new election you lose your rights. Look for a candidate that is advocating less government intrusion and has policy to back it and vote for that one.

I'll give you a hint the two primary ones are not where you want to look and Nader is worse than both put together.

Good news

[mbbac]

We're safe because the department is stupid.

"I don't think any of my people know enough to know an environmental crime," [agency official] Beaulieu said.

I feel so much better about it now.

Executive Order 12333

[Sheepdot]

According to Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in 1981, members of the U.S. intelligence community can collect, retain and pass along information about U.S. companies or people only in certain cases.

I thought to myself: Why was this order originally imposed?

I mean, after all, we're talking about spying on US citizens here. Turns out, the law was passed in response to the intelligence agencies already spying on citizens. Reagan, and others, wanted to establish what reasons were legitimate to spy on their own citizens. Where were the citizens of the country involved in the process of making this?

Sources that would seem to support this.

Here's an idea. How about we quit giving current Presidents and congressional leaders the means through which they can enslave us? Everyone here does realize that the President can legitimately declare martial law right now as there are enough men and women in the armed forces right now that would not find this disturbing or even questionable. Very few Americans are exercising their right to own a gun, so there is nothing that can be done about it.

Re:Executive Order 12333

[DRWeasle]

Very few Americans are exercising their right to own a gun, so there is nothing that can be done about it.

I think you got this a little wrong here. The latest facts I could find are:

Number of guns owned (1997): 200-240 Million
Number of owners (1997): 60-65 Million
US population (2001): 284,796,887 estimate.

That places gun ownership at about 25%. I don't think that qualifies as "very few."

Re:Not worried about this....

[SlamMan]

Than you've got the making for a lovely lawsuit on your hands.

Huh? No big deal

[doormat]

So they take aerial photos, and map out what hospitals are close to big events incase shit happens. Yea, they probably need to have stronger oversight from another agency, no oversight when dealing with this kind of data is bad. Thats about all I got out of this.

Whose watching them?

[eseiat]

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.

Re:Not worried about this....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

You Are Being Watched for Your Own Protection

[ddelrio]

Uncle Sam loves Us and wants to keep Us safe. He wants to make sure you don't accidentally do or say something that hurts Us--for Our own good and for the good of The State. Praise be to Flag.

Re:You Are Being Watched for Your Own Protection

[ddelrio]

How does a humorous comment which makes a political statement make me a troll? Even on /. the average IQ is dropping rapidly. Morons.

Spatial data is neat!

[drewzhrodague]

Spatial data is neat, tho, I think it is nice that the US Gov't does this -- and publishes the data for free. Without things like TIGER, we wouldn't exist!.

tinfoil hat

[5m477m4n]

Looks like I'm going to need to put a wider brim on my tinfoil hat.

Re:If you don't want people looking in your window

[mamba-mamba]

If you don't want people looking in your windows..
Close them.

I don't know where you live, but here in California, windows are transparent.

MM--

Re:Not worried about this....

[joebagodonuts]

It's easy to complain. Can you provide a solution?

If you are willing to put in whatever work it takes to change this, great. If you want to sit and whine but do no work to effect a change, then you deserve what you get.

Doubtful

[ktulu1115]

I'd be willing to bet that the gov't keeps that information classified.

Regardless, this technology the NGA has light years behind what the NSA uses.

I could really care less as long as the quote "...But the NGA couldn't take actions to target a specific individual, such as highlight a suspect's home, unless the information was linked directly to a national security issue" remains truthful.

Re:Not worried about this....

[polecat_redux]

I can't seem to remember the exact details, but there was a story several months back here on slashdot about a behavioral study that involved installing cameras all throughout a section of park somewhere on the east coast and watching how people respond to the fact that they are being monitored (it even had some wacky "Big Brother"-sounding name). They found that even people who were doing nothing illegal tended to modify their behavior to fit perceived social norms when they knew they were being watched.

Radiation monitoring?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'd like to know is are they using satellites to look for radiation where it shouldn't be (i.e. borders with Canada or Mexico and ships near coastlines)?

Is there technology to see radiation (plutonium) signatures from space in real-time or near real-time?

I would hope so.

Re:Radiation monitoring?

[lachlan76]

Not sure about fission bombs, but IIRC, h-bombs have a thick U-238 casing, which would stop any radiation getting through.

Re:Radiation monitoring?

[mikael]

Is there technology to see radiation (plutonium) signatures from space in real-time or near real-time?

Alpha particles (high speed helium nucleii ejected from the heavy elements) don't travel very far. Neither do Beta particles (high speed electrons). Even gamma rays only have a range measured in thousands of metres. The brilliant beam of blue light as described by the Chernobyl was never detected.

The only way to really detect such radiation sources is the flash from the explosions. Although meteorites burning up in the atmosphere can generate similar signals.

An Oversight Committee will do the trick!

[freality]

Let's take a bunch of senior congressmen (the kind who get the juicy oversight committee jobs) who have long histories of spending 1/4th of our tax dollars on the largest military in history and give them the job of oversight for whizzy tech projects out of the Defense Department. Sounds like a recipe for success to me!

Oversight is useless unless its done by and for public interest. Fat cats who regularly porkbarrel for the defense industry are not for the public interest.

Re:Not worried about this....

[BrakesForElves]

...And sadder that even with the instant, world-wide communications we have, people still suggest that comparing the representative government of the US to the repressive, muderous government of Stalin has any validity, at all, ever. In case nobody has noticed, Russia was ruled by Stalin alone, whereas the US is ruled by, er... well, _lawyers_ I guess. (But the line about Stalin still goes). .

Nude sunbathing

[chiph]

Guess I'd better not take this up...

Although if Elizabeth Hurley wants to, that's OK by me.

Chip H.

Re:Nude sunbathing

[Nf1nk]

Ah yes but I plan to start nude sun bathing in the hopes that all of my pasty white flesh catches the sun just right and blinds the satelite, or alternatly puts a flag on my location that says "do not look here under any curcumstance"

Well

[paranode]

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?

You weren't under the impression that those hijackers magically appeared here from Afghanistan right before their flights, were you?

Outsourcing is a way around civil liberties

[paronomasia5]

I saw a talk by Steve Rambam at Hope 05. Besides a live demo of a database that freakin blew my mind (in a live demo in than 30 seconds, steve pulled up everything about a guy in the audience, including past roommates, active phone lines, and his mom's credit report using *ONLY HIS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER*).

his assertion is that privacy is dead, not because Big Brother in D.C. is watching, but because Big Defense Contrator is watching. The government, sick of trying to ram through legislation on what it can and can't do with data it collects on its citizens, is now sub-contracting all kinds of tasks. For example, perhaps the Feds can't do a nation-wide driver's license photo scan without inciting privacy concerns; however, if most of the states sub-contract out their photo processing to a contractor on advice from big brother, then that contractor hires itself to the big brother and sells *RESULTS* from some data mining query (but never the data itself), then big brother hasn't violated any privacy rights. Similarly for phone logs, criminal databases, airline data, medicare, drivers license, health databases, traffic tickets etc.

he told me the name of the database we should all really be afraid of, bigger than Echelon, but i forgot its name.

His bio for those who are interested: Steven Rambam is a licensed private investigator and the owner and CEO of Pallorium, Inc., an investigative agency with offices and affiliates throughout the world. During the past 23 years, he has conducted and coordinated investigations in more than 50 countries and in nearly every U.S. state and Canadian province. For the past 13 years, he has also been the owner and director of PallTech, an online service which provides database and investigative support services to investigative agencies, special investigative units (SIUs), and law enforcement. PallTech offers interactive and non-interactive access to nearly 600 data sources, including five major proprietary databases such as Skiptrace America and BusinessFinder America. The Skiptrace America database, which currently contains more than 5.3 billion unique records, is believed to be the largest individual reference database in the United States, excluding those databases maintained by the three U.S. credit bureaus. More than a decade ago Rambam forced the tightening of airport security in Texas airports by publicly exposing those airports' security flaws. In 1997 he exposed the presence in Canada of 162 Nazi war criminals and also conducted investigations which resulted in the prosecution and conviction of war criminals on murder charges. He is also the inspiration for "Rambam the detective" in Kinky Friedman's series of murder mysteries.

Bureaucratic Begging

[cbelt3]

"while intelligence budgets have increased dramatically in the last five years, congressional oversight budgets have not." Why is it that da gummint has one half watching the other half, and each of 'em is taking more of OUR money to do it ? Geez....

Re:Not worried about this....

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Privacy is one of the most basic civil rights. One SC justice commented a long time ago that you have every right to be left alone. This includes any inspection or oversight of your life.

Liberty is based upon tolerance, and it really helps if people simply aren't very informed about the details of your life. There are too many laws; everyone's been made into one type of criminal or another. Since we've no stomach for reducing laws to more sensible minima, then privacy is going to be a very important point.

Re:sentence fragment

[Polymath Crowbane]

I thought it was a sentence fragment as well, until I considered the possibility that claims, in this instance, is being used as a verb. In that case, the sentence is complete and logical, as it refers to the claim being made by the story (three years worth of...).

Speaking of wide open.....

[k4w0ru]

I find this cover more disturbingly familiar...
this last weeks cover.

Re:Well

[owlstead]

You weren't under the impression that those hijackers magically appeared here from Afghanistan right before their flights, were you?

I can see why you should have satelites spying the USA to catch muslim fundamentalists taking flying lessons. Not that I agree fully with the parents post. US citizen != terrorist? I can think of at least one big bombing where this was not the case...

Leviathan

[EvilGoodGuy]

We all should have seen this comming. It is as Thomas Hobbes says in his writting, Leviathan. Basically, we give up some of our rights, so that a large beast, our government, can come in and take over to restore order. The difference is we are not the Fiji islands asking the British for help. We raised this one ourselfs. So bring out the offering plates, I think he's getting hungry again.

Re:Well

[randyflood]

No. But they weren't US citizens either, now were they?

The rules are a bit different when you are talking about spying on somone when there is an official investigation involving National Security then when you just happen to be looking around and see something. Likewise, the rules are different for when you are targeting non-US citicens then when you are targeting US citicens, I believe.

I think that if you start looking around at US citicens on US soil because you've got a hunch that you might stumble across something that could later be useful or something or someone might ask about, then there could be a problem. I could definitely see how that sort of climate could occur shortly after 9/11. I'm not suggesting that it did necessarily. I'm saying that we should scrutinize such matters. Better safe than sorry.

Keyhole just censored the White House roof

[Animats]

I just noticed that Keyhole recently censored the White House. A few months ago, you could see rooftop details. Now it's all a uniform brown. They also censored both Executive Office Buildings, overpainting them with a uniform green. The Capitol and the House and Senate Office Buildings have been blurred, in an ugly, pixilated way. Not the Supreme Court, though. Or, for that matter, the Pentagon.

If you try GlobeExplorer, you get an uncensored image until the last two zoom levels. Then the White House turns brown.

Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[reallocate]

Actually, the AP article does not explicitly state that this agency is directing satellites to acquire new imagery inside the U.S. Perhaps, they are, perhaps they aren't. Personally, I'm not too worried about anyone watching my public activities. If I was concerned about seeing me, I'd stay home.

Of, course, who's going to exercise oversight of all those Russian, Chinese, French, Indian and Israeli reconn satellites?

Re:Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[blueskies]

Of, course, who's going to exercise oversight of all those Russian, Chinese, French, Indian and Israeli reconn satellites?

You mean because those Russians want to solve crimes in the US? And those kinky Chinese want to see the nude sunbathers?

Besides US gov't can take care of the foreign satellites.

Re:Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[reallocate]

It was an (apparently feeble) attempt at irony. directed at the tinfoil brigade. A lot of people around here seem to value their "right" to hide their public activities a lot more than my right to stay free of crime.

Re:Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[blueskies]

But you don't have a right to stay free of crime just like the police don't have to protect you from crime.

Re:Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[reallocate]

I have an absolute right to remain free of crime and the police have an absolute obligation to protect me from crime.

I have an absolute right to liberty and freedom. Crime directed against me thwarts my exercise of that right. That, in essence, is why certain behaviors are considered crimes.

The fact that society and the state are no able to povide perfect protection from crime does not bear on my rights.

Re:Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[blueskies]

I have an absolute right to remain free of crime and the police have an absolute obligation to protect me from crime. Uh, no. It has been ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you from crime.

See here.

In this case three rape victims sued the city and its police department under the following facts: Two of the victims were upstairs when they heard the other being attacked by men who had broken in downstairs. Half an hour having passed and their roommate's screams having ceased, they assumed the police must have arrived in response to their repeated phone calls. In fact their calls had somehow been lost in the shuffle while the roommate was being beaten into silent acquiescence. So when the roommates went downstairs to see to her, as the court's opinion graphically describes it, "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands" of their attackers.

Having set out these facts, the court promptly exonerated the District of Columbia and its police, as was clearly required by the fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.

If you want to get into a semantic arguement about rights and from whence they spring that is a different arguement. And saying "I have an absolute right to liberty and freedom" is false in our current society anyway. How much liberty are you willing to give sentenced criminals?

Re:Who's Watching The Other Guys?

[reallocate]

I agree with that court decision. The D.C. police are widely criticized, often with reason, for being intolerably slow to respond to calls, but they are under no obligation to prevent any specific criminal act. They are, as I said, obligated to protect me from crime. Protection does not equate to prevention.

I've no problem with restricting the ability of criminals to exercise their rights. They've forfeited their freedom to exercise those rights for a period of time. That does not mean that they lose, permamently, their absolute right to liberty and freedom. It simply means they can't exercise some of those rights. Society compels certain changes in behavior; it cannot affect the rights of any individual.

To argue that society can determine the rights that accrue to an individual, rather than regulate how those rights are exercised, is to also argue that society creates an individual's rights. I do not accept that. Our rights exist by simple virtue of our existence.

I think you misunderstand the 9th ammendment

[Sycraft-fu]

What it means is that anything the government doesn't make speicifcly illegal for you to do is legal. So they can't say "Well you can't do that because we didn't make a law saying you can," they have to make a law saying you CAN'T before you aren't allowed.

Nowhere in there is public privacy or anonymity implied or stated. I can't find anywhere in the constution that it talks about public privacy, in fact. It talks about being secure in your house, person, papers, etc which is taken to mean that your private property is off limits except with a warrant, but nowhere does it talk about any right to be left alone in public.

I think the problem is that people confuse privacy and anonymity. You have a right to privacy in that the government can't search or look in your house without your permission, can't tap your phone without permission, and so on. That's privacy. What you want in a right to anonymity, which is the ability to be unkown and unwatched in public. Sorry, that's not a right that's listed or implied anywhere.

It also doesn't seem very natural. Seems that if you are in public, you are subject to being watched. In almost every store I go to there are security cameras watching what I do. This doesn't seem unnatural to me, I appreciate that I am not anonymous and invisible in public. If I want privacy, I retreat back to my house, close the door and draw the blinds. The government knows I live there, but then they didn't need a satalite for that, my Driver License and tax payments tell them that, but they don't know what I'm doing there unless they can get a warrant to check it out.

Just remember that the 9th and 10th are NOT saying the government can't make new laws to restrict rights. If they said that, the constution would be all we'd have and that's not much. They say that UNLESS the government makes a law restricting something, it's not illegal. That's not the case in all societies, in some the government must declare something to be legal, or it's illegal by default. The 9th and 10th just say that if the feds have no law on it, the states may maek a law, and if the states have no law, the people are free to do it and that just because some rights are listed, doesn't mean you don't have more than that unless a law is passed.

Re:I think you misunderstand the 9th ammendment

[Sheepdot]

yes. I agree.

The problem I have is that a huge portion of population believes "you don't have the right..." before even considering that I have ALL rights save those taken away from me.

If the government suspects me of a crime, as a citizen, I should be made aware of such. If I'm thrown into a database of "rebels" than that is hardly justice.

I'm for freedom, just a different kind than it appears our political leaders think we value. I don't want freedom *from*, I want freedom *to*. I don't see how my purchasing of say, a weapon, needs to be recorded, registered, and thrown into a database. I have no qualms with the government, I'd only want a weapon to protect myself in the instances that the government was unable to.

The local cops have the "protect and serve" insignia. I appreciate that, but there is little protection that can be afforded when they are spending their time filling quotas for traffic violations and DWIs. I guess what I'm getting at is that based upon ones origins or political views, there is now a database or reason to suspect of a crime that has not (and in my case, will not) come to fruition. It just doesn't make sense.

NGA

[HSI_Guy]

As far as I know, the NGA doesn't operate like the CIA or FBI, in that it doesn't involve itself with surveillance of indivuals or businesses, etc directly. It basically gets tasked to geospatially analyze an area or scene. In addition to doing 3d modeling (which can be used for mission planning, etc.), (using LIDAR to map sniper vectors, etc), capabilities include identifying materials on the ground from space-based or aerial assets. (Multispectral or Hyperspectral analysis) Much of the agency's ability to analyze is derived from commercial or unclassified platforms. On the opposite side of the spectrum (pun intended), much of what national asset capabilities are used for are, in effect, as a highly accurate reference. So, when you are classifying endmembers in a hyperspectral satellite image, you use classified geo-referenced imagery to pinpoint a targeted area. Geospatial is absolutely amazing, and like the first poster stated, I can't believe more people aren't involved in it (good for me). It truly is an area that is blowing up, and offsetting the losses in other IT areas. One of the main reasons for that is that it's not only pressing buttons and coding all day long. It involves elements of programming, analysis, geography, geology, hydrology, ground-truthing (field work) and countless others. It takes alot of knowledge in many fields to be an expert. Many experts have one niche, and know relatively little in others.

Re:MLB?

[scupper]

I wonder what a MLB team slugfest looks like via spy satellite? Something like Diablo or Age of Empires?

Re:Not worried about this....

[owlstead]

Oh, no there we go again. According to what seems like 70% of the /.ees you should just walk out of your job and look for a better one. You can just wait for these kind of answers if you state something like that.

Let's see, there is already one of those, yes.

Doesn't anybody think this is just plain stupid? What if you're 55 years old? What if you have build up a nice career? What if there _are_ no other jobs? What even if you like your job?

An employee should have rights as well.

I'd rather that they...

[MacFury]

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.

Not Intrusive - In Most Cases

[JLucien]

The level of detail varies widely, depending on the threat and what the FBI or another agency needs.
"In most cases, it's not intrusive," said the NGA's associate general counsel, Laura Jennings. "It is information to help secure an event and to have people prepared to respond should there be an attack, or to analyze the area where a threat has been made."

yeah, so what about the cases that are intrusive?

The real value of SpySats

[CaptainTux]

This is a suggestion that I made to the DoD over their website the other day. It's a good example of how I believe spy and tracking technology could be used in a positive way:

1: Implant TEMPORARY subdermal GPS enabled microchips into evern millitary and civillian person working or serving in the middle eastern hotzone (or any hotzone for that matter. But right now, it's Iraq). This will allow you to pinpoint with a very high level of precision the exact location of personnel should they be kidnapped.

3: Rescue the hostage and have a much better chance of killing the kidnappers.

Yes, I realize the privacy implications and the conspiracy implications of it all but, at some point, there IS a tradeoff between unabridged rights and personal and group safety.

Re:The real value of SpySats

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously for obvious reasons - think about it for a second.....do you think they would advertise this if it were in place for certain groups in the military?

"Special ops soldier - tell us where the GPS tracking device is or we start cutting off body parts one at a time!"

Re:The real value of SpySats

[dbIII]

3: Rescue the hostage and have a much better chance of killing the kidnappers.

That trick never works, in Iran we knew exactly where the hostages were but couldn't get them out. Carter lost power over it and Reagan paid the biggest ransom ever seen - to a bunch of terrorists.

In recent times the Russians found they couldn't get all the hostages out, and Russia has comparable military hardware and more experience with that sort of thing than the USA.

The more information collected, the better

[still cynical]

Hear me out on this. I'm as appalled as anyone by governments overstepping their bounds and spying on its own citizens (and anyone who thinks THEIR government is innocent of this is deluding themselves)

I firmly believe that the "slippery slope" we keep worrying about is inevitable. How do we safeguard ourselves? Simple: overload the system. Anyone who works in intelligence-related activities will tell you that the volume of information gathered is not the problem, but analyzing, filtering, and properly dessiminating(sp?) it is. RFID chips, GPS tracking, shopping membership cards, etc. as well as many other forms of gathering information on members of the general public already exist, and more are being developed every day. The ability to make use of that information effectively is not keeping pace however.

Extrapolating to a logical conclusion, I believe that the time will come (in the not so distant future) where agencies both public and private will have so much information on every single individual that any item of information as well as the individual associated with it will become meaningless. It's only a matter of time before everyone has been to a meeting, read a book, posted a message, etc. that the only effective way of managing such minutiae will be to discard them.

Those in the data-mining industry may argue that they will find practical ways to deal with such massive amounts of information, and they may be right. But I hope not.

Re:The more information collected, the better

[Lewis Daggart]

We have that now with the internet... But they probably use Google so we're still screwed.

Re:Not worried about this....

[Artifakt]

What if one day, you take a stand on a political issue, and someone announces that you spent a suspicious amount of time near an adult book store that lies near the intersection of your routes to and from job, gym, and grocery store? A few carefully selected words to the local police and you can end up on their pedophile watch list. Will it inconvenience you if the local police keep checking to see if you have an alibi for one crime after another, and regularly verify your story with your boss, spouse, neighbors, and Nautilus coach?

What if someone at that gym is caught dealing steroids, and the times you visit the gym, fit a pattern with his, (or can be fitted with one by a sufficiently skilled analyst),suggesting you might also be a drug dealer?

Technology is increasing the ways of making you look guilty by association. Hey, you posted political sentiments on slashdot, and I responded. Now, if you get into trouble, I'll probably get a call from the FBI asking how much I know about Giant Ape Skeleton's real name and activities. (and Vice Versa). Data mining can find such links, and yet only a small portion of the public, and probably less of the officials using the tools, know when to disregard such trivial links.

I think you just answered your own question

[writertype]

"But, at the same time, why should we pay our tax dollars to have the military spy on US citicens (sic), when they could be looking for terrorists?"

They are.

What about the blimp?

[omahajim]

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12 543,583484,00.html

The article says it can carry 4,000 pounds, and loiter at 12 miles altitude for a year:

From a military perspective, such an XXL craft may seem like an inviting target, especially since its top speed is only 80 mph. However, parked 12 miles up, it will be immune to most ground-launched missiles, and its onboard sensor systems will "see" at least 350 miles in any direction, allowing it to spy most incoming military threats. A fleet of 10, says the MDA, could provide an early-warning curtain for the continental United States.

Why Simi Valley?

[chrispyman]

Why did they even bother mapping out Simi Valley, it's probably the most boring (though nearly crime free) city in the entire world? And I should know, I live here after all ;-)

Re:Why Simi Valley?

[kaatochacha]

What are you talking about, Sycamore Plaza ROXXX!

Re:Why Simi Valley?

[chrispyman]

So that's one Slashdot reader whose on crack ;-)
Seriously though, one can't beat the prices of Mann Theaters!

The examples they cite are reasonable, I think

[ChrisInSF]

There *are* uses of surveillance that I think cross the line. However the examples mentioned in the article are, I think, quite reasonable. If we do use the technology we have *within reasonable limits* - thats good. However, we also need a new national dialogue on preventing a surveillance society that ignores reasonable limits as well.

But, lets face it, nobody wants to see real terrorism occur, either, when we could have been doing something..but weren't.

Its a slippery slope..

The solution...

[DrewCapu]

Never look up.

Even Gene Hackman knows that.

Maybe...

[susano_otter]

Maybe it's just a clever way of saying, "Nine thousand people have died in Nepal, since Amnesty International took up their cause. So what's AI good for, anyway?"

Re:If you don't want people looking in your window

[InfiniteWisdom]

I don't know where you live, but here in California, windows are transparent.

He lives in florida, you insensitive clod. His windows are made of plywood and fastned with nails.

Re:Hours spent killing in games prepares you for?

[xQx]

Actually being on the other side would probably be much better, the selection criteria is easier to meet and there are no rules of engagement.
The biggest advantage of being on the other side is you will probably get decent training -- the person teaching you how to kill was probably trained by the CIA, not some boot-camp.

Though, you do need a lot of practice in nightmare mode of doom3 before you can qualify. You only get one life, and you're grossly out-numbered.

Re:Not worried about this....

[Oligonicella]

"An employee should have rights as well."

They do.

Re:Not worried about this....

[Oligonicella]

"What if going to an AA meeting is suddenly grounds for a background check..."

Yeah, and what if your mom shows up at your house and shoots you dead for forgetting her birthday?

Jesus. That simply has to be some point between no problem and the stupid crap you said.

Magnitude

[Oligonicella]

It's the magnitude of the paranoid situations that amuses me. That the idea that the bad US government could even do the "cataloging me" of attending outdoor meetings (based on the top-of-your-head shots satellites give) is so laughable is something that the presumably techo-savvy geeks here aught to understand.

Climb on down off your paranoid ladders, guys. You (despite your beliefs) are simply not important enough to generate that scrutiny.

Re:sentence fragment

[cosmol]

so the AP story is claming ownership of surveilance data?

sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me

Yet another reason...

[slazar]

to never go outside again!

Re:Yet another reason...

[Loonacy]

Bah... Like I ever went outside anyway. That nasty giant glowy thingy is always waiting for me.

Re:Not worried about this....

[Frennzy]

How stupid is it?

What if you work for the USPS? What if you work for the DoD? The NSA?

You're missing the point. Government collection of data has been going on for a very long time, and it's getting much worse. Did you know that Nixon tried to have John Lennon deported....twice....because he was considered subversive? The FBI had a file on John Lennon...which detailed exactly the kind of information we are talking about.

John Lennon was no terrorist...and not really even a decent subversive, and the most likely criminal thing he did was smoke pot. But he was STILL harasssed and intimidated by a government who, in their own arrogance and fear, thought him to be a threat.

I can cite numerous examples of exactly this type of behavior...in the US....not Stalinist Russia.

How about instead of slinging mud at me, you take a moment to do some research. Further, I'm fine with it if you want to throw away your freedom and privacy...just don't drag me down with you....move to some other country where the citizens have already been stripped of their rights.

That data isn't for us

[cusco]

"merging the geo-spatial data with up-to-date information from the National Weather Service"

Nice in theory, but by the time that the data can be pried from the clenched rectal orfice of military censors any cloud would have dissipated. How many years did it take for the Bhopal victims to find out that accurate GIS info even existed for their area? It's been two decades and they still don't have access to it, just the outdated, inaccurate maps that the Indian government had. (Admittedly, they're Indians suing a US company, but still . . .) Hell, there's stuff from the Spanish-American War that is still considered Classified. What the hell can still be worth considering Secret after over a century?

The cult of secrecy within the US military community is astounding. Knowledge is power, and people become career military folks because they want power. They're not going to hand it over to civilians just because it might be a nice thing to do.

The (in)security agencies, like the FBI, CIA, and NSA, are even worse. They still refuse to release the security camera tapes from the store across the street from the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, or the ones from in front of the Pentagon, or most of the airport tapes from 9-11. Wouldn't that be in the public interest? Apparently not.

"could be used for personal surveillance. Um, not."

The combination of live feeds and GIS most certainly CAN be used for surveillance. On a whim one day, I tracked my wife's trip to the mall, using only the publicly available traffic camera images provided by the City of Bellevue (WA) on the Internet. The images only update twice a minute but I was still able to tell within 30 seconds of her arrival time at the mall. Think about the information available by access to the direct feed of those cameras, and combine it with image recognition software and the three dimensional viewing noted in the article.

This is not pie-in-the-sky futuristic dreaming, this is today's off-the-shelf technology. I wonder what Admiral Poindexter is working on now that he has been taken off the Database Of Everything project.

No funding = No oversight

[cusco]

If X amount of dollars is required to monitor an organization with a budget of Y dollars, do you not think it clear that you need at least 2X dollars to monitor that same organization when its budget doubles or triples (or quintuples, as is the case for one agency)? Instead oversight budgets have either maintained the same funding levels (which means that they decrease after inflation) or those funding levels have actually been reduced. This was Newt Gingrich's bit of genious. He realized that they didn't need to get rid of pesky groups like the EPA, FDA, and military auditors. All he had to do was reduce their budgets to the point where they couldn't do their job, and his sponsors' problems went away.

Real Terrorism?

[cusco]

If there aren't terrorist attacks happening in the US right now, it's because the terrorists don't WANT to attack us. This stuff isn't rocket science, they don't need extensive networks, sophisticated training, or suicide bombers. Just hijacking a gasoline tanker, driving it into a tunnel at rush hour, jackknifing it across all lanes, opening the petcocks, and shooting it with a flare gun from a safe distance would kill hundreds. Shutting down the country's second-largest export is a simple matter of shooting up the electrical substations and/or power lines that feed Boeing with a deer rifle. I think that Al Qaeda is largely a myth. Osama Binladden is a civil engineer. He built roads, bridges, and power dams. He certainly knows how to destroy them quickly and easily, but it doesn't happen. Why?

Maybe then, but this is now

[BattyMan]

Mapquest and Terraserver et al have been offering up USGS satellite photos for years

They don't anymore. Go check Mapquest. All the aerial photo links are GONE. Maybe this got to co$ting them too much, maybe the USAPATRIOT act forbids them to? Terraserver won't give you any decent resolution unless you buy a ($10/week, $120/year) subscription.

The problem I have with all this surveilence data being gathered is that _I_ can't get at it. This _does_ make it useless to the general citizen, and therefore an intrusion on his privacy. If I could see the pretty pictures, and maybe use them for navigation, I'd feel a lot less ill-used.

George & Tom?

[RoboProg]

W? Ridge???

Oh, you meant Washington and Jefferson.

I think maybe that explains the difference :-)

Re:Not worried about this....

[dbIII]

comparing the representative government of the US to the repressive, muderous government of Stalin

You may have noticed he said "Stalinist surveillence", not the entire system of government. Cameras don't kill people.

The point is still valid - if the information is all there someone will use it, and there certainly have been a few corrupt people in the intelligence community over the years, where checks and balances are sadly lacking in many cases. We've already had situations like some loser exerting his power with no consequence to divert the plane Cat Stevens was on to teach him a lesson - inconveniencing passengers and costing the airline money. And then there's the situations like Ollie North not being satified with treason and skimming money off the top as well. Giving such folk unwarranted power is stupid, we shouldn't give them the power to do more damage unless we really need to give them the power to do their job.

There's a lot of people who are just using the deaths in New York for their own shameless ends.

In the land of McCarthy and the camp in Cuba, you should know that you don't need to involve an existing law or a judge to imprison people. Only in "the land of heroes" you can say crap like "Russia was ruled by Stalin alone" and be believed without people realising that he sat at the top of a system - he didn't drive every bus! "Only following orders" only goes so far - every dictator, however brutal, has a bunch of people working for them, often just as brutal.