Slashdot Mirror
US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically
DigitAl56K writes "The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."
I don't even think you can use evidence collected by this type of illegal surveillance in court! So if I, for example (NOTE TO THE NSA, I AM NOT DOING THIS, I'M SIMPLY GIVING AN EXAMPLE), hacking into some computer, the NSA catch me with their illegal warrantless computer, and try to try me in court, can't I just challenge the evidence they are using or something? Claim it can't be admitted into court?
:)
In all respects, I knew this would happen. You destroy civil liberties with a pointless war, and what do yuo get? A POLICE STATE. What the United States are doing IS HOW HITLER GOT HIS RISE TO POWER! Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?
First Post
It's like we're living in the world of Verhooven's Robocop. Or maybe Miller's cause he's so much cooler...
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.
This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.
ignore other potential good uses from such technology.. Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm. Fleeing bank robbers, etc.. In all technology there is a chance for abuse of authority, be it in your own office or with government control. Chance for abuse does not negate the ability for technology to be helpful to society. To be sure - be vigilant of government practices, but don't cut off your feet to spite your nose either.
... another violation of your rights, brought to you by Bush & co & sons. Coming to a theater near you. Enjoy.
Read radical news here
If we take the fourth amendment
That's the weak point of most arguing for stronger privacy rights. The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now some will flame away with their own personal views about what unreasonable means and what secure in ones papers, etc. means, but the fact is the view that is in vogue in most political circles is that unreasonable means that the person searched was somehow greatly inconvenienced by the search. This doesn' provide a very strong defense for privacy.
So, we are forced to look elsewhere. The greatest argument for privacy comes from the fourteenth amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The pertinent language their regarding privacy in there is the phrase "...property, without due process of law..." Therefore, any person arguing for a strong right to privacy has the fact on their side that the fourteenth amendment requires due process for any act that the government takes to manipulate the property of a citizen, intellectual or otherwise, must come with due process. This is where the libertarians have it right. To have any sort of privacy we must strengthen property rights, intellectual or otherwise. Now I know intellectual property is not a popular concept around here, but is going to become a political necessity in the near future when the cost barrier to record and store massive amounts of data about a citizen becomes lower and lower.
In short, forget the fourth amendment. No matter its original intent, it's been chopped up and rendered almost useless when it comes to effectively guarding privacy. A spying program is essentially a government requisition of private intellectual property. Due process is a much stronger defense for privacy.
I got a catholic block.
"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?"
I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?
In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors.
But money is not the only purpose. One key to understanding why Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush family want violence is understanding the mental illness of anger. It is true that they are apparently helping their friends and family who have investments in weapons and largely hidden business with the U.S. government. But they are also acting out their anger. It's the anger of people who have put money first in their lives. It's the anger of alcoholic personalities; both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been arrested for driving while intoxicated.
the current administration loves abuses of power
The current administration. As if the exponential growth of the US federal government over the past century, in both revenue and power over the people, and the steady consolidation of power into the hands of the few -- everything which makes abuse of power readily possible -- can be attributed to the current administration?
This space available.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
V.
... under surveillance.
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
i could hope that a new administration will mean that there will be a change to this policy. even if that happened though, the pendulum would probably swing back to the surveillance again.
on a related note, i noticed cameras on the traffic signal arms at an intersection near my home that look a lot like surveillance cameras. there are two sets of cameras with each signal now: what i THINK of as a traffic camera, that monitors traffic flow (more like a counter) and has been on the signal for a long time now, and then a "regular" camera, with a lens for real imaging and thus, watching and recording what happens in or near the intersection.
i'll admit i don't read the local paper (not that it'd likely be reported), so i don't know if there is a public explanation for these newer cameras, but they do intrigue. if i start to ask questions, i'll be the crackpot of course.
"To stop the terrorists."
Isn't it ironic, that communism and fascism aren't all that different? Its just a different economic model, in that in one, the government OWNS and CONTROLS everything to the benefit of the owners of the government, while in the other, the government is OWNED by a few and controls everything to the benefit of those same few.
Communism, and Fascism, in practice, were the precursors to what we have today. Even socialism is too limited a term to cover the social and economical controls imposed from above.
Those guilty, however, reside next door, not at some white washed building in DC.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to to ahead anyway.
... assuming it gets better. Now granted, Federal law enforcement has gotten too big for its britches before (such as the FBI under Hoover) and eventually Congress had to take notice and rein them in. There is a pendulum effect here, these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, under Hoover the FBI was a direct threat to Congress itself, which no doubt explains their desire to restrict the FBI's activities. I doubt concern for the citizenry had much to do with it, but at least they were willing and able to put some controls in place.
... they're on a collective power trip and see no reason to stop. Remember Darth Vader's first scene? He said "There will be no-one to stop us, this time." I think we're in the same boat as Princess Leia.
Well, if nothing else we have to give Hell, Bush, Cheney & Co. an "A" for persistence. This is totally within character for them, as well as the various agencies that have sprung up around and because of them (the TSA, for example.) This is going to get much worse before it gets better
The problem is qualitatively different today: Congress has proven inept at providing adequate oversight, and itself is interested in yet-more-powerful government. I don't think we're going to find salvation in Washington
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So too, does the cost of doing it wrong.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"domestic military operations"?
"DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS"?
that phrase scares the shit out of me. i want the military standing at the border looking out, not standing on the street corner looking at me.
Because the bush administration tortured people in violation of the geneva convention, will you hand over bush, cheney, rice, powell, ??? to the hague for trial for crimes against humanity as required by international law?