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."

2 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. Re:W00t. 1st post by digitalchinky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The process is a little different to what you might think. These imagery birds produce a constant stream of pictures every time their solar panels are lit up with sunlight, a few less if in shade. Obviously areas of interest can be pinpointed as the satellite passes overhead, but these things rarely float around idle.

    A warrant might give some imagery weenie the legal go ahead to distribute specific files, but that doesn't mean the pictures are only taken when a warrant is present. Over the years 'real time' has expanded to include 'sifting' through huge amounts of data storage to pick out not only a location of interest, but also a time of interest.

    If the warrant doesn't include a time frame, then you can bet your backside it will be assumed to mean an unlimited capacity to view any imagery for the location of interest until the warrant expires.

    Depending upon the acquisition method and storage, you might only have a few days of historical info, or you might have years.

    Ex 3 letter agency drone typing.

  2. Re:I am a member of the US Intel community. by bryce1012 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sir or Madam:

    First, let me thank you for your service to our country. I am sure that you folks "in the trenches" are hard-working, honest individuals, and as patriotic as any one of us could hope to be. With that said, I urge you not to take it personally when I say: "WE DON'T WANT YOUR HELP."

    There are bad things in the world. I recognize that, and I am glad to hear that there are people like you working to keep me safe from those things. Surly you must realize, however, that no matter what you and the rest of our government do, some element of danger will still exist... but in the process, we are being stripped of the very freedoms that we as Americans used to hold absolutely sacred.

    Look at it like this: I have an 18-month-old son. My wife and I made sure when he started crawling that we had those safety plugs in floor-level outlets, we put some cabinet locks on the cupboards with the dangerous substances, and we put gates across the stairwells. We did these things because there are real dangers around our house that we can very easily mitigate. Of course, there are also dangers that are harder to deal with -- for example, he could fall off the sofa (and has). Does this mean we should get rid of all the furniture, because he could fall off? Maybe we should just take the furniture out of his room, and keep him in there 23 hours out of the day. Perhaps some form of restraints?

    Obviously, I can't make the world perfectly safe for my son. My job as a parent, then, is to try to strike that balance between keeping him reasonably safe and giving him the freedom to learn and grow. Similarly, it's the job of the government to keep myself and the rest of the American citizenry reasonably safe, while still giving us the freedoms we value so much.

    This administration, in my and many others' minds, has crossed far past that balance point. The safety this sort of program would grant is certainly a good thing, but the cost is just too high. Thanks, but no thanks.