Slashdot Mirror


US Set to Use Spy Satellites on US Citizens

duerra writes "A plan to use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law-enforcement missions is moving forward after being delayed for months because of privacy and civil liberties concerns. The plan is in the final stage of completion, according to a department official who requested anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about it. While some internal agencies have had access to spy satellite imagery for purposes such as assisting after a natural disaster, this would be the first time law-enforcement would be able to obtain a warrant and request access to satellite imagery."

16 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. Re:W00t. 1st post by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anyone here surprised...I mean, anybody ??? Yes - The government is admitting to using spy satellites on its own citizens. I find that very surprising.
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. Starting now? by TheSpengo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this mean they are just now starting to do this or just now admitting to doing this? ;)

    --
    Weaksauce as they say...
  3. And how long will this language remain? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . this would be the first time law-enforcement would be able to obtain a warrant and request access to satellite imagery.

    With the way things have been going, I'm surprised they're still even pretending to care about due process. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with law enforcement gaining access to spy satellite photography as long as they can only get it after supplying evidence to establish probable cause that a specific person committed a specific crime in a specific time and place. But I'm very concerned that little requirement is going to fall by the wayside and they'll be able to spy on citizens waiting for anybody to slip up.

    Slippery slope indeed . . .

    1. Re:And how long will this language remain? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wait, did you seriously just say "I'm okay with omnipresent surveillance"? Oh boy, do you need a smack upside the head with the Constitution.

      Well, I'm not thrilled by it, but the satellites are already there and we frequently send new ones up. It's potentially a privacy-destroying technology, but the bitch of it is that (to steal a bit from Arthur C. Clarke) nature doesn't keep secrets. You can't uninvent anything. We just have to learn to live with it.

      Besides, does it really matter if it's law enforcement going after satellite imagery, or law enforcement subpoenaing private security cameras (almost as omnipresent in densely populated areas)?

      Whether the cameras are in someone's pocket, mounted on a building, or flying overhead on a satellite, the fact remains we've got cameras EVERYWHERE. We're not getting rid of them any time soon, so the only thing I think we can really do is make sure the rules are *very* strict for when law enforcement can get their grubby little hands on them.

  4. Re:W00t. 1st post by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if they can do it WITH a warrant, they have already shown they will circumvent the warrant process when it's suits them. be it a valid use or not.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  5. Re:W00t. 1st post by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes - The government is admitting to using spy satellites on its own citizens. I find that very surprising.
    It's now too late to be surprised. It's too late for anything. Now the Government is so comfortable, so complacent admitting they are doing things like this, it just means that it is too late to change anything. It's over. Forget democracy, your vote will have no effect in changing this.

    Just be thankful you are not in an evil totalitarian regime, like the UK.
  6. Re:It's of no consequence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

    We will get fooled again.

    If a major political party supports a candidate, you can be sure they've checked with their masters before allowing them to become viable.

  7. Re:It's of no consequence by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I might even vote for the guy, but if he or any other presidential candidate, if elected, manages to undo even a fraction of past wrongs done unto the People---and I'm not just talking about what has changed in the past eight years---then I will eat my socks.

    Show me an executive and a bloc of legislators who would willingly relinquish powers. A few examples notwithstanding, these sorts of people don't make it into government. Not here and now, anyway. The principles embodied in our primary charters, those from the Enlightenment, are res non gratae to modern politics. If acknowledged at all, they are given lip service. The judiciary upholds the principles sometimes; but without a constructive force creating new law to rebuild them, all we have is case law, which is a crapshoot.

  8. Re:1984 one giant step closer... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, it is easy to blather on (blah blah blah sheep blah cattle blah blah), but seriously, what the hell are we supposed to do? It isn't like I don't vote. It isn't like I don't write my senators and congressmen long, thought out, well worded letters.

    It seems like the only option is to leave... yeah... where they require a passport for you to cross the canadian border on foot. Where a passport takes months to get. Where even if I go, I pretty much can't take my most valuables (AKA my computer), because they will likely look all through it or even take it.

    Seriosly. We are already too far gone. Nothing can be done.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  9. Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're missing the point. No one is concerned that the spy satellites are used to conduct actual counter-terrorism and counter-espionage intelligence and surveillance. That's fine. The problem is that every little bit of technology in the last few years has been openly abused to conduct drag-net surveillance of innocent American Citizens.

    I don't care if you're truly Intel, someone pretending to be, or just on crack. The point is that "Trust us, we know what we're doing" is not the proper response to "what the hell do you think you're doing?" Your stance that we cannot know what the Intelligence community is doing is just as irrelevant to the problem. The set of *possible* uses (as opposed to the set of actual uses) is very well known, and the problem is around the potential for abuse. Even a technology's potential for abuse is not necessarily a problem, if the users and wielders of the technology are known to abide by accepted laws and standards. The problem really is in the last few years, it has been shown that there are enough shitbags in the Intelligence community and those using its reports that these technologies are guaranteed to be abused.

    I'll be damned if I consent to drag-net type intelligence gathering on citizens that are supposed to be presumed innocent.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  10. Re:W00t. 1st post by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just be thankful you are not in an evil totalitarian regime, like the UK. ...yet.

    The difference is, we are still clinging to our 2nd amendment - so at least we still have armed revolt as an option. The UK doesn't even have that.

    Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.
    =Smidge=
  11. Re:It's of no consequence by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My guess is, if he wins the nomination, someone will make an assassination attempt just prior to the November election. There's just too many groups out there to whom Obama would be a threat, both philosophically and economically, and not just the neocons either.

    Considering that Obama has been compared to JFK, and the groundswell of excitement for his campaign (especially among young folks) akin to that of RFK, and with his being African-American like MLK....well, yes, I worry about the same thing happening. As Mark Twain once said: "History does not repeat itself. But it does rhyme."

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  12. Re:They've won. by interactive_civilian · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, right.

    It's easy to be deceived if you are ignorant, arrogant, complacent, and passive. Those of us who saw the US moving down this path right from the start (using 2007.09.11 as the start, because that seems to be when the massive powergrab started, though the symptoms where there long before) were derided as paranoid, "tin-foil hatters". We were told, "This is America. Stuff like that can never happen here." We were told to "Calm down. It will never get that bad."

    You know what? The US Constitution IS just a goddamn piece of paper. You know why? Because it is a contract from the people to the Government telling the government exactly what it can and cannot do. It's up to the people to enforce that, and when they don't, then it stops having any value greater than the paper it is written on. Your actions, or lack there-of, speak for you, and what they are saying is you don't care that this is happening.

    You know what the US reminds me of? In the old cartoons, when a character ran off the cliff, he didn't start falling until he looked down and noticed that it was too late. That's where America seems to be. I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly don't see enough people caring to actually set things right.

    I'm glad I left.

    /cue the "good riddance" comments

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  13. Re:1984 one giant step closer... by corbettw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you willing to kill other people to stop this kind of thing? Are you willing to give up your life, so that your children, or even the children of your friends, family, and neighbors, can live in a freer society than we? If you hesitated or said "No", or indeed anything other than a forceful "Yes", to either of those questions, you are a part of the problem and have only yourself to blame.

    Not every colonist in 1776 supported the Revolution, but enough people did to change history. Can we find enough people with strength of heart, character, and purpose like that today?

    I think it's time to stop talking and asking questions, and to start making some powerful people sleep a little less well at night.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  14. Nice distraction by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I keep seeing this ludicrous "we can take up arms!" justification for having no control of guns in the United States. You do realize that for any practical purposes, unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?

    If you don't believe me, ask some of the guys who had a hell of a lot more guns that you probably do and decided to take up arms against the government. Ask David Koresh. Oh, that's right, you can't, because he's dead. Ask Timothy McVeigh. Whoops, he's dead, too. Ask Eric Rudolph. Whoa, you actually can, because he's not dead yet, he's rotting in a jail cell in Colorado!

    Anyone who threatens to take up arms against the government is either playing on irrational emotions or an idiot, and they're more dangerous to society than helpful to it. You would have thought that people would have learned more from Dr. Martin Luther King, but I guess he was just some kind of weird ineffectual idealist, right?

    When it comes to guns, I'm infinitely more concerned about well-meaning stupid people who think they're responsible gun owners than our government, because in the U.S., the government already own us, lock, stock, and barrel. (Pun slightly intended.) No, it's not a good thing, and I don't particularly like the situation, but it's the way it is, and gun control didn't have a damn thing to do with it. Stupid voters constantly giving the government too much power and taking away our civil liberties is what got us in this situation.

    If you really want to make a change for the better, then quitcherbitchin' with all this gun talk, get off your ass, and either run for office or support someone running for office who will do a better job of protecting our privacy and civil liberties. Because when you rationalize wanting to own dangerous weapons with the excuse that you might want or need to take up arms against the government someday, you're not coming off as a patriot, you're coming off as a bloodthirsty idiot.

    1. Re:Nice distraction by bumptehjambox · · Score: 5, Insightful
      unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?

      Iraqi insurgents don't have nuclear weapons and I'd say they're doing relatively well against us. They cost us billions of dollars every day, and thousands of lives each year. Nukes make a country unlivable, the radioactive decay would make this land worthless for years to come, the government wouldn't do that... Nuke where the most fighting would take place, right? So New York? Washington, DC? The entire eastern seaboard? Nuke their own ports and sub bases? Nuke their weapons caches? Nuke their capitol city?! If you want to see what urban combat against clandestine rebels who oppose the acting government would be like, hit up Iraq; I'm sure the Army can make room for you.

      Sure it seems impossible for full scale chaos in America, but say there's a shortage on oil, and subsequently food, in the near future. How impossible is it then?

      This has nothing to do with gun rights, by the way. My point is just, no one needs guns to kill people (see: IEDs a la Iraq) and it's quite naive to think our government can't be fought simply because of the tools they built in an arms race with Russians for over 40 years. In guerrilla warfare through city streets, masked by civilians, fighting an enemy who has lived their entire life within the confines a a few square miles, they're all sitting ducks. Read the news sometime! Spy satellites are simply a bit of insurance, it will help notice patterns, like how they find weapons caches in Iraq and then monitor them via satellite before striking it. Make no mistake that they put spy satellites up with the intent of searching for their... ENEMIES!

      You are correct about the rationale, you certainly wouldn't want the government to know you own semi automatic weapons if you intend on fighting that government WITH those weapons. Only insecure fools trying to compensate for shortcomings would justify their gun like that, the type of person who wouldn't have the nardules to even use it in that situation.