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."
We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions. This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us.
.... as soon as google makes the interface accessible.
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.
The image resolution and capabilities of those satellites are a closely guarded secret. If they intend to use this in everyday criminal prosecution, one of two things are going to happen:
1. Every crime and investigation which uses imagery from these satellites will be classified a state secret; or
2. The general public, and by extension, the whole world... Will know the exact imaging capabilities of these satellites.
The first is not compatible with the Constitution, which provides the dual safeguards of (a) having all the evidence presented to the defendant and (b) that all such evidence must be available for public inspection. I would ask that anyone who is concerned that either of these situations is not happening in our domestic affairs take up the matter in public protest and through contact with their elected officials. Do not be afraid, but do be vigilant and as our government keeps an eye on us, so too must we keep an eye on them.
Their eyes may be in the sky, but ours should be on, and for, each other.
- A citizen of conscience
And it definitely is a case for "Wehret den Anfaengen". Somehow I doubt that the US population will do much better than others to prevent the creation of first a sueveillance state and then a dictatorship. Of course this is proceeding slower than most other efforts in that direction in the past, but I think if I would be living in the US, the time to become really afraid is now. Probably the best chance against this is the next election. Seems for once you have acceptable candidtaes all around, which must be a first in recent history.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
They took a posse after posse comitatus
You know it's cuz those fuckers hate us
They'll use the mil-i-tary
Our ass to quickly bury
If anonymous, we try to make us.
--fyngyrz
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'll take my chances on the small risk of danger from kidnappers and the ilk rather than the given total decay of privacy. It doesn't even matter if any if it is admissible in court, they just give the local police a "anonymous tip" and then they show up and search people, all you need for a search is reasonable suspicion, it's not near as restrictive as getting a warrant. I'll take the TINY risk from criminals over the certainty of abuse.
Do they want a civil war?
Yes. Thats why they're building detention camps to hold hundreds of thousands of people. Mass civil unrest would give the current administration and the 'elites' in power the excuse they need to remove all remnants of democracy and declare martial law.
I perceive that there will soon be a huge market for IR-shielding devices for your home.
This reminds me of that 'Weeds' episode where a couple of HomeSec goons going over high-altitude IR photographs can clearly see the giant cross that Nancy is using as a sun lamp for her crop (after Doug stole it from a church), even with the roof in the way.
First, what information makes you believe that this type of surveillance is automatically illegal? The courts have upheld that using technology to make easier or safer that same type of surveillance that could be obtained by other means is legal (ie GPS). The police could hover a helicopter over your house at any point and get the same view. Google Earth and Streetview already give overhead images of your house at certain times. It is not like these satellites see inside your house. They are simply another view of information that is visible in the public domain. It would most likely be admissible and not subject to the exclusionary rule.
confirmed step 1) Make the people uninterested in elections (as far as I'm aware in the USA there's an election for way too many things).
confirmed step 2) Give the people a common enemy (terrorists).
confirmed step 3) Use step 2 to give yourself additional additional powers (partiot act)
confirmed step 4) Divert attention of the people to something more interesting then the situation at home (war).
confirmed step 5) Make use of the chance created by step 4 to give yourself more rights, and strip (or circumvent) the rights of the people.
step 6) Something happens which gives you a reason to use your extra rights (economic collapse?)... among which
step 7) Cancel the next presidential elections for an undefined period.
Notice how close you are?
Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
This also has some truth to it. I think what has happened is that Bush & Co. recognized early on that by controlling the media, not necessarily the majority of the media, but the media the reaches the majority of the people, that they can get away with whatever they like, that only a vocal minority would even be aware of what was going on around them, and that this minority are not the group of people that would protest in a fashion that would actually effect a change.
/. audience falls into the second category.
Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.
Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the
Quote which part of the constitution gives you inalienable rights. It doesn't exist.
The Declaration of Independance has that wording, and is by its definition an illegal document.
Posting anonymously since people posting facts seem to be getting troll modded to oblivion while people spouting group-think get modded up.
Is it illegal for the police to watch walking down the street without a warrant, no. One of my friends is a cop, he is required by the courts to look through the cars windows for a handicap sticker before he can write a ticket for parking in a handicap space, do you think this is a unreasonable search? Is looking through a window with your eyes any different from using a camera on a pole. from a police helicopter of a blimp? Is taking a picture with a camera from an aircraft any different than looking and is doing something like taking a picture from a aircraft any different than takeing a picture from a spacecraft? Is taking a picture through the your window with visible light coming through really that much different from taking a multi-spectral image of the thermal IR pouring through your houses walls?
The problem isn't that the Government is taking away any rights you have, the problem is believing you have rights that you don't.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
My experience is almost always the same -- occasionally I'll get a reply that looks like the rep actually took the time to write back personally, but only if I took a position that the rep shared. To be fair, they probably get a goodly number of letters & it's hard to do all of them justice.
For the most part, since my area is thoroughly Republican, writing to my reps seems to be a waste of time. My HoR rep, in particular, is a powerful Republican (Roy Blunt) who doesn't give a tinker's damn about what his constituents think except inasmuch as it gets him reelected[1]. His counterpart in the Senate (Kit Bond) is the same, and being powerful Congressional Republicans, they are among Bush's chief enablers.
[1] One particular incident sticks: a few years ago in the regional town I lived in, a protest in favor of gay rights was held while Blunt was in town. They invited him to speak with them, but he refused, saying that he doesn't represent "those people". I was under the impression that a representative was supposed to do just that, represent the people of his district or state. Silly me.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
An article someone sent me which makes similar points:
===================
545 People
By Charlie Reese --
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.
They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House?
She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are r
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?