Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DHS To Share Spy Satellite Data Over the US

Posted by kdawson on from the if-you-can-read-this dept.

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.'"

7 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. They should share it with everyone... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They should share it with everyone... by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...there is too much data, and they have too few people and resources to sift through it all. Actually, that's kind of what worries me. There isn't going to be any 'discovery' of crimes use to this at all. I fear for this only to be abused.

      I can run through a horror scenario and I'll even welcome the tinfoil hat comments.

      Your son gets a speeding ticket & tells a cop to "go fuck himself." There's nothing exactly illegal with that. Annoyed and upset, the policeman writes down the vehicle's make, model & license plate. The officer returns to his precinct and proceeds to monitor your sons vehicle. Your son happens to surpass the speed limit & the officer promptly issues a speeding ticket ... and another ... and another. Where ever your son goes at night, this policeman checks it and waits for him to show up at the wrong place at the wrong time to nail him with a crime. Law of parties can be a very powerful charge.

      See the problem with this 'tool' is that any law enforcement with an ax to grind or whatever motive can wait for you to slip up. Everyone breaks the law, it's just a question of when. That's what worries me. This is like entrapment or some crazy idea of your government viewing you as guilty until everything is monitored and you're proven innocent. Everyone is human and therefore makes mistakes and this spells bad news for anyone who crosses the police or is the target of racial prejudice.

      Long story short, it's not useful to 'discover' criminal activity & is just begging to be abused. We have warrants for a reason, get them in place on this!
      --
      My work here is dung.
  2. DGB by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  3. What difference does it make? by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What difference does it make? by doggod · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's nice to see a few people getting their underwear in a bundle over this. I only wish more people had done so last year in time to prevent Congress from passing the Mother of All Fascist Laws, S. 3930. This law gave the President -- now and in the future -- the authority to "disappear" and torture anyone at any time for no reason other than that a group of the President's hand-picked friends think it's a good thing to do. Government thugs can slip into your home in the middle of the night, take you away, and no one will ever hear from you or know of your whereabouts again. Remember Argentina in the 1980s? Now you're getting the picture.

      Amazingly, the Congressmorons even now will tell you that that isn't what the law says. But then how would they know? They never read the bill before they voted for it. They never read any bills any more before they vote for them.

      But, if you have a strong stomach you can go read the law yourself and see. At first glance it does indeed appear to be harmless, but if you wade into the fine print way back at the end you'll find little gotchas that work around the harmless part to make the law, in effect, the complete usurpation of Constitutional government.

      So the stuff about spy satellites is just, at this point, same-ol-same-ol. If there's any hope at all to return to the country to what we once had before "the terrorists" manipulated Congress to transform it into what they wanted, it's to hammer at Congress to repeal this bad law. I do this regularly, using the handy-dandy tool they have at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=58/.

  4. They need to reread the 4th amendment by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful
    How is this different from a LANDSAT photo?

    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.

    Cessna@1000 or telephoto lens beats out any spy satellite.

    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.

    Think of it this way: it's a civilian benefit from a military budget. How cool is that?

    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.
    1. Re:They need to reread the 4th amendment by fosterNutrition · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree completely, but I think you missed one huge point:

      How is it different from some guy with a telephoto on a hill? Well, does this guy have petabytes of storage available to keep track of everything he ever sees? Does he stay on the hill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year? Does his field of vision from the top of the hill extend across the whole country, at ultra-high resolution? Does he have massive computational and personnel resources available in order to actually analyse all (or all the parts he chooses) of what he sees? Does he have the power to access information that you would normally consider safe from those you choose not to divulge it to (e.g. criminal records, passport/immigration/travel records, financial details, etc)?

      Depending on the answers to those questions, there may be no difference at all. But there may also be an enormous and life-altering difference, depending on who this guy is, and with whom he shares what he sees. Every time you give something, you lose something; the question is whether it is a justifiable and acceptable loss. Any time you give anyone power over information about you, you lose a little privacy, a little anonymity, and a little liberty. It's hard to get it back.