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."

28 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Is that admissible in court????? by Doug52392 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 :)

    1. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somewhat implicit in your response is that you assume that you'd even see the inside of a public courtroom. If the administration can ignore laws which people heretofore assumed applied to them, who's to say that people allegedly caught with this "new" technology are entitled to a fair hearing? Scary stuff.

    2. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How cute, somebody who thinks he'll have a trial. A trial where he gets to see the evidence, no less.

    3. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by firex726 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says they have to give you a trial, or even charge you.

      They got detainees in Gitmo, that have been there for years with out trial or eve being charged with a crime.

      Somehow I don't think the rhetoric of "You used illegal surveillance to jail me", will do much to convince them to let you go.

      Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them. We the people have already show how apathetic we are to this treatment.
      But hay, enough with all this thinking and having opinions; American Idol and Survivor are on!

    4. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them.
      Admissible in court?? It was a court (the Supreme one) that we have to thank for all this, after their boneheaded decision in November of 2000.

      Long after other presidents have been forgotten, George W. Bush will be remembered for what he did.

      And domestic spying from outer space isn't even close to the worst. Hell, compared to the torture business that's been breaking in the news in the past 2 weeks with the John Yoo torture memorandum and now the information about the "star chamber" that layed out the plan for this torture regime, domestic surveillance like this is barely a blip on the radar of evil.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it is. It says nothing about differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. Where does it say in the constitution that these rights are for citizens only and/or that non-citizens should be excluded from these rights?

    6. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought they were called "inalienable rights" because they applied to everybody, no matter what? Where does it say otherwise?

      How can we function as a nation if our marching order is to treat citizens of other countries as less than human and not deserving of basic civil rights? Although, now that I think about it, it would partially explain Bush and company.

    7. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually our govt (the US govt) can only do what we give them the permission to do. You don't like it, write your congressman and/or senator. Be vocal, or we can just bitch and complain. Our choice. And don't forget to include a bigger backhander than his/her corporate sponsors can provide. Then they might take notice of your letter.
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by jamstar7 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While great in theory, the practice seems to be rather different.

      Congress these days seems to be taking care of its constituents nicely. Its true constituents, the corporations who donate to their re-election campaigns. The citizenry is their product, and we have been delivered to their constituents. Unless you are a massive campaign contributor, they're not listening to you. And I mean 'massive' as in the case of 'borderline illegal'.

      You say that they can be voted out, but this is very unlikely. Somebody quoted me a figure of 98% re-election results for a sitting Congresscritter, although I haven't found any links on it, so take that figure with a grain of salt. Even if the figure was as low as 66.67% re-elected, replacing a sitting Congresscritter literally takes an act of Congress. Possible, but you'd have better luck playing the lottery.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    9. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called extraordinary rendition. Which itself is an extraordinary term.

    10. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is why the government is doing whatever they want to do and getting away with murder.
      Our own people don't know what is written on their own Constitution.
      The Constitution of the United States doesn't use the word "citizen" but the word "national" of the United States, being a national of the United States anyone living in the territory or under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no difference between citizens or non-citizens.
      Now regarding your "I am a citizen they cannot do that to me" thing, let me explain something to you. The Act of the Congress that gave the President powers to declare War on Iraq and to wave war against the Al-Qaeda and their allies, gave powers to the President and the Civil and Military agencies of the federal government to incarcerate ANYONE suspicious of being an enemy agent or an enemy of the United States. And that means military incarceration under a military jurisdiction (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghrabi and so on). Military incarceration is ruled not by the Codes and Laws of the United States but by the Geneva Convention. However, the Geneva Convention applies only to "military corps, regular and irregular" so if you are not actually engaged on an armed militia, you are just a civilian, and will be under military incarceration. So that means no protection under the Geneva Treaty, or the VIP treatment including: waterboarding, electrical shock, cavity search, stay in Guantanamo without bail or right to a trail on a civilian court. The goods.

    11. Re:Is that admissible in court????? by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant any rights at all. Not a single one. They merely recognize some of the rights that all people already have. That's why they're called rights, not privileges or some such, after all.

  2. If There Was Any Chance... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:All of the paranoid responses.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm. Imagine your government wrongfully accusing you of a crime and thereafter tracking your every movement and association.

    At what point do we say enough is enough? We can already catch kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk. We already have helicopters. At some point the potential for abuse, which we know based on virtually every aspect of the Bush administration and governments worldwide will be realized eventually, must outweigh the marginal benefit we gain.
  4. "Fighting Americans since 2000" by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... another violation of your rights, brought to you by Bush & co & sons. Coming to a theater near you. Enjoy.

  5. Re:New generation of privacy concerns by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Is the USA still a democracy? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:Is the USA still a democracy? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?
      Where have you been for the last seven years?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Is the USA still a democracy? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How not so?

      Operates independently of law, and unilaterally re-writes laws as they are signed.

      The US Congress is like Julius Caesar's Senate - soon to be like Tiberius and Caligula's.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Is the USA still a democracy? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While he's Evil, he's fortunately not a dictator. George W. Bush:

      I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And while we laughed and cried in apathy and disenchantment, he decided. And no man, law, constitutional or human right could stop him.

      Is this he not a dictator?
    4. Re:Is the USA still a democracy? by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      retoric retoric retoric *yawn*

      You are still able to post this. W was democratically elected(blah blah blah 2000 Al Gore blah blah). The Surpreme Court is not doing it's job.

      There is no dictatorship. W is doing what he wants and nobody really gives a shit. That's not his fault, it's the fault of the people that have the power to stop this kind of behavior.

      W is not a dictator, you and the Surpreme Court are lazy bastards.

      There.

      I said it.

      Now mod me down.

      Lazy fuck.
      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    5. Re:Is the USA still a democracy? by rastos1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are still able to post this ...
      ..providing you are in free speech zone. You are still able to post this on /., but try it somewhere where it matters.
  7. Re:Blowback by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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? Previous administrations were always pushing the envelope, stretching things further and further, with occasional steps outside. The current administration took a Zippo to the envelope, said "fuck you and your stupid envelope," and called us terrorist sympathizers, traitors, and actual terrorists if we complained.
    --
    This space available.
  8. Re:All of the paranoid responses.. by Grave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chance for abuse? CHANCE FOR ABUSE?!

    Are you new to the world? This administration has abused every single bit of leverage or opening they've been given. You're damned right we're paranoid, and our government has demonstrated repeatedly why we need to be. Congress is questioning the legality of it while Bush is burning every copy of the Constitution he can find. I don't care at all whether this is legal - it cannot be allowed. As a nation, we elected a whole lot of congressmen in 2006 for the purpose of reigning in Bush and the Iraq war. Not only have they utterly failed to do so, they've allowed our civil liberties to be even further trampled upon. Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for blocking the administration's abuse of power, so we as voters are left with a choice between evicting as many as possible and starting over, or just electing the same old crew to do the same old job.

    I pray that all the Slashdotters who complain about stories like this (and who are citizens the USA) are going to use their right to vote this November to make their voices heard.

  9. One nation... by kosty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... under surveillance.

    --
    "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
  10. Re:New generation of privacy concerns by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:What are they looking for? by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about. As the marginal cost of watching any individual person approaches zero, so does the amount of "importance" required to justify the ever-decreasing expense.

    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.
  12. Re:New generation of privacy concerns by acvh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.