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."

29 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig. by mrbcs · · Score: 5, Funny

    1984? Shit, America is making Orwell look like an optimist.

    --
    I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  2. If only... by CormacJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd be all for this, if I was allowed to use its search engine and see what I did after I went to the bar last night. ..

  3. 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.
  4. 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...
  5. FEMA MAC by penix1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While some internal agencies have had access to spy satellite imagery for purposes such as assisting after a natural disaster


    Get it right. The "internal agencies" is FEMA. See:

    http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/

    The GIS specialists don't have direct access to classified data but instead are given polygons of requested data which is based on those satellite images. Only the military, NSA, Other Security Agency has access to the output of the sats directly.
    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  6. 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.

  7. Re:Oblig. 1984 in the UK by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 5, Informative

    Over on this side of the pond we don't need no stinkin spy satellites.....

    Every major city & town is already 90% covered by CCTV. You can't walk from one side of the street to the other without appearing on a CCTV system.

    We're already covered.. Say cheese :-)

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
  8. 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....
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. Re:It's of no consequence by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow....all hail the Second Coming. Messiah Obama. He will magically rescue us from all our ills...

    Look, I love the guy, and he is heads above anyone else in this race. But don't think for a second that he's going to represent some wholesale shift in government policies. He'll be corrupted and compromised, at least to some extent, by the realities of D.C. culture and by those who wield the real power. (Hint: it's not in the White House. Think big bureaucracies with three initials. Not to mention nine people in ugly black robes.) Once power is obtained, those who yield it tend to be quite reluctant to let go of it.

    Will we be better off under an Obama presidency? Hell yes, no doubt. Will all government corruption and Constitution-gutting cease? When pigs fly. It's always about choosing the lesser of the evils.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Misquoting Ben Franklin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    In that quote, Franklin is excoriating Quakers in Pennsylvania who have given up "essential liberty" in order to make themselves less of an immediate target to raiding tribes who supported the French in the French and Indian War (known in Europe as the Seven Year War, IIRC).

    Here it is:

    In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King's Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, "if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs," seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them. Franklin is slamming those that have given up the "essential liberty" of arming themselves in the face of "insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers".

    Franklin is referring to bearing arms as an essential liberty. And he says that those who give up that essential liberty has only himself to blame for getting victimized by raiding parties.
  16. 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
  17. What about Google Earth, you OK with that too? by Swift+Kick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand the outrage at having our government use spy satellites to spy on us, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Google virtually doing the same thing. If anything, we think it's cool, and applaud all the numerous 'mashups' that have emerged and whatnot.
    For that, we volunteer all kinds of information, because it's not The Man(tm).

    At least the government is still trying to convince detractors of this program that they'll ask for warrants and whatnot; Google does it with impunity, daily, and you think it's cool!

    Wake up, people. Be consistent in your positions. If you're going to whine about how The Man(tm) is trying to make 1984 look like child's play, then complain about Google basically doing the same exact thing, with *YOUR* help (but in a much cooler way).

    --
    "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
    1. Re:What about Google Earth, you OK with that too? by GiMP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a difference between google's 10 year old, blurry images that can hardly see houses and military satellites that are practically live feeds, and can count the hairs on your head... unless you wear a hat.

  18. 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.
  19. 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=
  20. Re:W00t. 1st post by Nullav · · Score: 5, Funny

    Either way, it's probably a good time to start learning Chinese.

    Or Canadian.
    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  21. Slashdot users are immune... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    There isn't a satellite made that can see into your mom's basement.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.