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.'"

7 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. free to citizens too? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmm...so, should this info be made freely available to the US citizens, so we can monitor how well our govt. is doing things like protecting our border...where they are gathering in reference to peaceful protests, how well they're responding to emergencies (would have been interesting for Katrina to see them all standing around).

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "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.'""

    Someone in a book suggested dispensing with privacy and have two-way transparency. The watchers get watched with the same degree of attention they watch us.

  3. Re:Admissibility by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd be fine with it being used to find the kids that broke my window. Or the person that stole my car or broke into my house or any other real crime. What I'm afraid something like this could be used for is catching the person who buys a bag of weed, or smokes a cigarette in a nonsmoking area with nobody around or any of the other "made up" crimes.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  4. Judas Priest was 25 years ahead of its time. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
    > But really folks, is invisible surveillance really that much more dangerous than the visible kind? I don't think so. If the crazies are so worried, let them run around planting signs everywhere: Never Forget The Eye in the Sky!

    Reminds me of a little song I heard when I was growing up. Once upon a time, today's world would have been looked upon as the demented fantasy of a heavy metal band.

    Up here in space,
    I'm looking down on you.
    My lasers trace
    Everything you do.
    You think you've private lives, think nothing of the kind!
    There is no true escape, I'm watching all the time!

    (CHORUS):
    I'm made of metal, my circuits gleam!
    I am perpetual, I keep the country clean!
    I'm elected, electric spy...
    I'm protected, electric eye...

    Always in focus,
    You can't feel my stare,
    I zoom into you,
    You don't know I'm there
    I take a pride in probing all your secret moves,
    My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove...

    (CHORUS)

    Electric eye (in the sky)
    Feel my stare (always there)
    There's nothing you can do about it! Develop and expose!
    I feed upon your every thought, and so my power grows!

    (CHORUS)

    I'm elected, electric spy
    I'm protected, electric eye
    I'm elected, electric spy
    I'm elected
    Protective,
    Detective,
    Electric
    Eye!

    - Judas Priest, Electric Eye, 1982.

    Not bad. Pretty much got everything right. "Keeping the country clean" as the excuse for the power grab. "Elected. Protective. Detective." as the correct chronological order in which to implement it.

    (I'm going to try and ignore the video for Turbo Lover and the suspicious resemblance to the cyborg-on-a-motorcycle sequence from Terminator 2. He wound up getting elected as Governor, and you'd think that if a hair metal band really had come from the future, they'd have at least hinted at the Governator in a backwards-masked portion of the track... There's such a thing as taking pop culture too seriously, after all.)

  5. Re:They should share it with everyone... by dmpyron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ever hear of OBD III? The spec for it includes a two way radio. It could be used by the cop on the side of the road to get your speed without ever turning on a radar. In theory, it could also be used to, for instance, turn off your car. That's not in the spec, but there's no telling what might get "added in" by our benevolent government. You don't think that the ELINT can't pick up those signals? And discriminate? Paranoid? Maybe. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

  6. Not really anything new. by Sangui5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Law enforcement can't just make arbitrary searches; that's what the fourth amendment is about. If you hold a reasonable expectation of privacy, then fourth amendment rights apply, even in the face of advancing technology. The use of infrared cameras to look for marijuana grow lights is illegal without a warrant, for example. Similarly, even though it is feasible for there to be a microphone planted inside a phone booth, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside phone booth. So, LEOs need to get a warrant before they can bug a phone booth.

    Also, there are some traditional privacy rights which can interact in interesting ways. For instance, you have the same privacy rights in the area immediately around a house (the curtailage) as you would inside. The curtailage includes any areas under a roofing overhang, and any areas generally bounded by fences, hedges, and other physical obstructions which would prevent a ground-level observer from peeking in. So, even though your back yard is open to the sky, both aerial photography or satellite imagery requires a warrant. Viewing from a nearby tall hill doesn't.

    Law enforcement can already use commercial satellite imagery (within 4th amendment limits), or their own aerial overflights (again, within limits) to get images just as readily as they could from the US government. For the scary things people are worried about, they can already do them if they are willing to break the law themselves. Using military satellites would be just as illegal.

    1. Re:Not really anything new. by Sangui5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bad form to reply to myself, but here's links to relevant SCOTUS cases. Overall, the tone is about when one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      Note that the links may require registration (findlaw seems to be a little random about that). You can also just google the case names.

      SILVERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 365 U.S. 505 (1961)
      ----------
      Ruling that using a "spike mike" to push against adjoining wall to listen in was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that nobody expects a spike mike to be used, and that the people who were being listened to had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=365&invol=505

      KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
      ----------
      Ruling that bugging a public phone booth without a warrant was illegal. The ruling makes a big deal that although the phone booth was transparent, it still blocks sound, and it was for the purpose of not being overhead that one enters a phone booth. Hence, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=389&invol=347

      DOW CHEMICAL CO. v. UNITED STATES, 476 U.S. 227 (1986)
      ----------
      Ruling that a 2000 acre industrial site is not like the curtilage of a house, but is more like an open field, so using commercially available aerial photography is not illegal. The ruling considers that since anybody could overfly it isn't a big deal, and that the area is particularly large and open so one really can't expect privacy. The ruling briefly mentions that if advanced satellites were used, the search could have been illegal.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=476&invol=227

      CALIFORNIA v. CIRAOLO, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
      ----------
      Ruling that naked eye observation from 1000 ft in an airplane in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling considers that anybody could fly over at 1000 ft, and that overflights aren't unusual, hence there shouldn't be an expectation of privacy.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/476/207.html

      FLORIDA v. RILEY, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
      ----------
      Ruling that naked eye observation from 400 ft in a helicopter in public airspace is not illegal. The ruling seems to make a big deal that nobody mentioned that 400ft helicopter overflights are unusual, and leaves open the question that if somebody did bring evidence that they were unusual, that the search may have been deemed illegal. However, given that anybody could have flown a helicopter at 400ft, it is legal.

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html