Slashdot Mirror
DHS To Share Spy Satellite Data Over the US
An anonymous reader sends us to the Wall Street Journal for the news that later this year the US Department of Homeland Security will begin sharing US spy satallite data with law enforcement and other customers. From the article: "...one of [DHS]'s first objectives will be to use the network to enhance border security, determine how best to secure critical infrastructure and help emergency responders after natural disasters. Sometime next year, officials will examine how the satellites can aid federal and local law-enforcement agencies, covering both criminal and civil law... DHS officials say the program has been granted a budget by Congress and has the approval of the relevant committees in both chambers... Unlike electronic eavesdropping, which is subject to legislative and some judicial control, this use of spy satellites is largely uncharted territory... [A CDT spokesman said] 'Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating intrusive and omnipresent, it's also invisible. And that's what makes this so dangerous.'"
Let's be honest...Law enforcement isn't going to get much use out of this...there is too much data, and they have too few people and resources to sift through it all.
Geeks on the other hand, would have a field day. There would be AJAX pages tracking border crossers in real time, sites dedicated to assembling satellite photos of crimes in progress, the works.
Sure, you'd have to deal with lawsuits from every nude sunbather in america, but that's a small price to pay for freedom.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Department, Commissariat (as in KGB) of Homeland Security -- what's the difference? The concept is the same, the purpose as well. There are still some details in implementation, but let's cut them some slack, they started just in 2002 so there's still much to be ironed out.
The real question is, does the population really believe any agency of this sort has a place in a democratic country?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Heh. Yea, he's "cognizant" of them all right.
I can't see how this won't be misused. "Where were you on the night of the 1st?" "I think I was at home..." "Well you weren't! Here are the thermal satellite images to prove it!"
Seriously. This is a wet dream for the cops.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Did you not read this at all?
They say that they're going to track your every move, and your response is, "Well, at least I don't live in that other place where they track my every move..."?
Maybe in England they're saying, at least I don't have to check the undercarriage of my car for GPS devices planted by the police without a warrant. (Of course, that's old news, so we've probably all forgotten about it by now.)
Besides, even if things are much worse in England (they're not), is that supposed to be some kind of justification for the gross invasion of privacy taking place? If our government starts deciding to randomly kill a bunch of its citizens just to demonstrate its power, would that be okay because there are other governments out there that randomly kill more of its citizens? Would you still say, "At least I don't live in that other country..." instead of actually feeling a bit of outrage?
No wonder this country is going to hell. With rationalization like that, our government will be able to get away with pretty anything it wants to.
c'mon this is /. if editors edited and readers read...
well at this point I am supposed to have a handy saying. Guess I'm not the "Insightful" kind of guy.
Anywho, this sorta data reminds me of the Google StreetView criticism. Is it really your privacy if anybody can see it? Then again, not everybody has access to a high powered, multi-spectrum satellite at their disposal.
Wait, I'm the ambiguous metaphor guy!
import system.cool.Sig;
The argument that private citizens should have equal access to this is an interesting one. Historically, satellite imagery from the NRO has been closely guarded on grounds of national security, because releasing it reveals details that might be useful to unsavory people about our satellites capabilities, orbits, and operating practices. There is of course, the additional issue of privacy. After all, not just any private citizen can have access to a wire-tap. Then again, a wiretap requires (in theory anyways) a warrant.
This doesn't quite strike me as uncharted territory. A satellite image is not fundamentally much different from an aerial photo (most people don't seem to realize that the majority of high resolution imagery on Google Earth comes from USGS camera-equipped aircraft). In fact, aircraft usually have the advantage of better resolution, the ability to schedule observations much more conveniently, and longer loiter times (you can't look at the same target for very long moving at 17,500 mph). The main drawbacks are they don't scan as large of areas, and your target can more easily see them, although it's hard to be sure if a plane is watching you or just doing flight training. Oh, and not many airplanes can fligh high enough to avoid an SA-2.
Actually, the Wall Street Journal author seems to have done a good job covering each of these issues in the article.
Regarding two-way transparency, if someone is being underhanded in exploiting that, it once again becomes unbalanced unless you have the resources to identify and address that problem. Net result: someone is still screwing with you, but you have less privacy.
Besides, we theoretically have checks and balances built into the system, but that doesn't stop people from using the system for their own purposes. If the system isn't perfect as is, I highly doubt it will improve by removing all restrictions on either side.
One word: Resolution. When one pixel might or might not represent a huge boulder, that's one thing. When it represents darker pigment on the tip of your left nipple, that's something else entirely.
Ever hear of adaptive optics? Multiple aperture arrays? Interferometry? The amount of money and technology available to the US government moves the bar right out of your reach.
No, think of it this way: It's some person half a continent away looking into your yard despite your privacy fence, watching your significant other sunbathe, nude. Without a warrant, an invitation, or anything remotely resembling a good reason.
What this means is that in order to attempt to be secure from unreasonable search (again, see the 4th amendment) from individuals in the employ of an invasive and out of control government, fences are no longer going to be sufficient. Now we're going to have to roof our properties too.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We know they're watching Muslims & registered Democrats. Will Blacks, college grads and Republicans be next?
Or are they already watching Republicans (just to keep them in line) and moving towards watching Muslims, Dems, Blacks & Grads?
As an aside, how come nobody in those Congressional oversight hearings ever asks "are you monitoring/wiretapping/e-tapping/watching me or my staff or my colleagues?"
Maybe they already know the answer.
Law enforcement can't just make arbitrary searches...
Arguing legality only works when:
a: the current laws are upheld by those who are in power.
b: illegal actions taken by those in power are made public
The problem with this is that we are increasingly seeing the erosion of our civil liberties over time. Using the fourth amendment argument doesn't work when we live with a government who can legally declare any American citizen an 'enemy combatant' and incarcerate them indefinitely without declaration of their crimes or due process and uses, largely publicly funded, infrastructure (AT&T) for domestic wiretapping.
IMHO, to claim that law enforcement can't because we're American and its been written on parchment is as naive as one can possibly be in the present world.
I am Jack's smirking revenge.