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.
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.
How cute, somebody who thinks he'll have a trial. A trial where he gets to see the evidence, no less.
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.
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.
Last year CNET reported on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".
Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout, Global Hawk, Predator 2, and the Dominator, their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.
According to DefenseNews the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).
Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
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.