Homeland Security's Space-Based Spying Goes Live

BountyX writes "While America's attention has shifted to the economic meltdown and the presidential race between corporate favorites John McCain and Barack Obama, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Applications Office (NAO) 'will proceed with the first phase of a controversial satellite-surveillance program, even though an independent review found the department hasn't yet ensured the program will comply with privacy laws.' NAO will coordinate how domestic law enforcement and 'disaster relief' agencies such as FEMA use satellite imagery intelligence (IMINT) generated by US spy satellites. Based on available evidence, hard to come by since these programs are classified 'above top secret,' the technological power of these military assets are truly terrifying."

Comments

Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

the technological power of these military assets are truly terrifying.

Only terrifying if you do not understand the limitatations of the associated techonology. It's a freaking telescope in space. With *gasp* a camera attached. The "above top secret" label gives the story a hint of rancid feces-- usually attributable to conspiracy nuts.

Could it be a privacy issue? Yes. But there is so much frantic handwaving and conspiracy flavored cool-aid that any objective points or are hidden from view at first glance. And the article isn't worth reading twice.

Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

...since these programs are classified "above top secret"...

Cripes, are people really this freakin' dense? Take a look in the dictionary under "top" and figure out what the word means. It means there ain't nuthin' above it!

The classification levels--- UNCLASSIFIED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, TOP SECRET--- are all there are, and simply determine what general degree of security is required. Now, individual subjects or programs will be compartmentalized, which is the more specific degree of access limitation within the general classification (referred to as Sensitive Compartmented Information - SCI and Special Access Programs - SAP). Compartmentalization tells who, where, and how much information can be revealed, and is based entirely on need to know. For example, I had a TOP SECRET clearance when I was in the Army, but I was specifically cleared for only a narrow subset (i.e. a compartment) of TOP SECRET information which pertained to my specific job, that of HUMINT Collector. Since I did not need to know about the whatever the latest hypersonic spy plane test bed is, I could not drive into Area 51 and go look at it, despite it certainly being classified TOP SECRET, and me holding a TOP SECRET clearance. The idea that there's some super-secret classification level above top secret is idiocy spouted by moron UFO conspiracy nutjobs who can't even consult Wikipedia for a simple overview of the classification system.

Re:Eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct English is irrelevant because of how this is being used, so you are wrong here. The use here is not as adjectives but as nouns, names for the classifications. "Above" as an adjective describing the classifications above that classification with the name "Top Secret". There are actually 8-12 security classifications (I don't know exactly how many, and the people do won't tell you even this), but you won't find public mention of half. And, yes, that is if you look really hard too.

Re:Eyeroll

[angio]

That's only partly true. While the classification system is not classified, the names of specific compartments or special access programs can be and are classified. A nit, but might as well be accurate. :)

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

*cough*ULTRA*cough

Sorry, I was going to say that there is a certain precedent for clearence levels so high most people don't even know they exist. That's not to say that it's the case here, just that in general it's would be foolish to think that TOP SECRET is as high as you can go.

Jeebus, like I said, you need to read the Wikipedia link, you UFO nutcase.

First, the uses of "ULTRA" seen in the UFO conspiracy rags is as a caveat to the classification "TOP SECRET".
Second, there is no caveat of "ULTRA" in the current collection, and no, there are no "secret" caveats. There are classified SCIs and SAPs, but they are never indicated by a single word, much less a meaningful word like "ULTRA".

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Unfortunately, although you may be technically be right, it doesn't help that the link you provide clearly shows a level of security above 'Top Secret'. Claim that SCI is just a subset of Top Secret all you want

It is a subset of TOP SECRET. You can tell by how they use the SCI caveat by writing "TOP SECRET-SCI/xxx" when they use it.

but the fact remains that there are programs out there who's classification level itself is a secret

Yes, the full name of SCIs and SAPs are classified at the same level as the project itself. That doesn't make it higher than TOP SECRET.

so if you're not only not allowed to know that the program exists, but also not allowed to know how secret it is... that might be above knowing that something is 'Top Secret'.

One of the defining characteristics of a secure and workable classification system is that the system itself is completely unclassified. Having parts of the system secret would make it impossible to recognize mishandled material. If (for example) a folder full of UFO data labeled "MEGA SECRET - SUPER-LEET" that got accidentally left in the hands of someone without clearance to know such a level of classification existed, they'd have no reason to believe it was anything but a joke, and would READ IT rather than take it unopened to the closest security, which is what you WANT them to do.

Really, it's very, very simple.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Oops, I was wrong on this point, and it is an important distinction to be made.

Well... you're both right. Many SCIs and SAPs have their code names classified the same as the programs themselves, but the only the full name of the program is unclassified. For example, there might be a program called BLUE ROOSTER LATERAL, and that name would be classified, but the cover sheet and external program references would be labeled "TOP SECRET - SCI/BRL", and that name reference would not be classified.

Re:Eyeroll

[bentcd]

There is no level above TOP SECRET because Wikipedia said so. Wow! Who's the frickin nut case? Don't believe everything you read, especially if anybody in the world can edit the gd page you're reading.

The basic reason why there isn't a level above top secret is very boring and pragmatic: it is imperative that the classification hierarchy is well-known so that personnel that are cleared for lower levels know to avoid material they happen across that is stamped with a higher level.

For instance, someone cleared for secret might be visiting a facility that holds top secret documents. It is important then for them to be aware that any top secret documents they glance held by the staff or whatever is off-limits to them. If there was a secret classification "ubersecret", someone cleared for secret would not be aware of this and might accidentally start reading such information. When this happens the classification system has failed and so this sort of thing is not practiced.

Further, as has been pointed out by others in this thread, the ubersecret classification is largely unnecessary anyway since the same effect can be achieved by compartmentalizing top secret.

Re:above top secret?

[Kagura]

Parent is entirely correct. More generally, it's classified "top secret" with "caveats" that limit it further. It's essentially top secret, but with extra rules. For example, "Top Secret//NOFORN" means "This is classified 'top secret' and it is not to be released to foreign nations."

Check out this wikipedia page on caveats relating to classified information. That heading and the next three mini-headings pertain to caveats.

As for the parent, I don't know what "talent" is, but "keyhole" is a kind of imagery spy satellite. I'll bet "talent" is a SIGINT spy satellite, but I'm not going to look it up right now. ;)

Re:Trollish Summary

[pizzach]

After watching how Ron Paul and Alan Keys were both marginalized by selective non-reporting (despite Paul's recordbreaking fundraising and massive grassroots support), I have no trouble viewing McCain as a corporate pick (or the people's pick from the corporations' small set of approved options). Ditto Obama (and Clinton) vs. Kucinich.

Reminds me of the one CBS news story I saw on Ron Paul. The story was on one of *those* Los Vegas places where apparently the ladies where asking for donations for the campaign from the clients. Now I can't help but get the feeling that CBS purposefully went out to look for the one thing about about Ron Paul that would offend the most people, while at the same time avoiding any coverage that would give people any clue who the heck he is in the first place. Meh.

Re:The obvious reality...

[davester666]

You think it's funny, but it's not.

Google (well, Google's partner who actually own and put up the satellite, Google just licensed the data for online viewing), requires permission from the US gov't to put up a satellite.

As part of getting a license to do so, Google had to agree to:
a) give the US gov't access to the raw data for ALL images that the satellite takes
b) requires that images for civilian use is downsampled (I forget what the resolution that us plebs can view)

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Daengbo]

I'm going to open my mouth when I probably shouldn't, but I've been out of the intel field for enough years that no one is going to get pissed off for me talking.

Satellite imaging is really pretty good. Better than you think. The military stuff is excellent. Imagine what we're doing now with atmospheric telescopes that we couldn't have done twenty years ago and realize that the same principles apply when the direction is reversed.

What really pisses me off is that I would have gone to jail back in the day for what they are green-lighting now. Much less than that, even. Disgusting.

I'm really glad I left all that intel stuff behind or I would end up in jail when I refused to follow orders.

Re:above top secret?

[Dun Malg]

As for the parent, I don't know what "talent" is, but "keyhole" is a kind of imagery spy satellite. I'll bet "talent" is a SIGINT spy satellite, but I'm not going to look it up right now. ;)

TOP SECRET-SCI/TK clearance (TK = Talent-Keyhole) is the specific clearance for classified satellite imagery. I don't know nuthin' 'bout that. ;)

Re:Trollish Summary

[DamnStupidElf]

CNN has had three articles written by Ron Paul about the tanking economy and election in the last month. Two that I know of were linked from the front page. Barely a peep about him when he was running for President.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[DerekLyons]

I'm going to open my mouth when I probably shouldn't, but I've been out of the intel field for enough years that no one is going to get pissed off for me talking.

I'm going to get pissed at you - not for giving up secrets, but for talking out of your ass. And for trying to make us believe that even though you've been out 'long enough' which implies you aren't familiar with current tech. (And you show you aren't even up on what's publicly known.)
 
 

Satellite imaging is really pretty good. Better than you think. The military stuff is excellent.

Satellite imaging is OK, but less impressive than you might think. Resolution is much less than fiction/Hollywood would have you believe, and coverage isn't real time. If a bird isn't available (and it rarely is) when what you want to see is going down, you are SOL.
 
 

Imagine what we're doing now with atmospheric telescopes that we couldn't have done twenty years ago and realize that the same principles apply when the direction is reversed.

Horseshit. Adaptive optics depend on seeing a guide star created by a laser, something you can't do with a satellite. There's also a technique involving taking multiple images and analyzing them - you can't do that from a satellite either as it moves too quickly.