Slashdot Mirror


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."

8 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Would you? by a+whoabot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Would you like to have such a satellite system for yourself? I probably would.

  2. Re:Trollish Summary by philspear · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'd point out that big corporations liking a canidate and giving sizeable campaign contributions does not mean they picked him. In fact, corporations often give money to both canidates in a race, reguardless of their platform. Many want to buy favor, not promote specific politics. If a canidate looks like he has a good chance of winning (aka a nominee for an election from one of the two parties) then typically he gets money from such corporations as long as he doesn't actively say "Don't buy Coke" or something like that.

    (Again, there are plenty of exceptions, some whole industries, like health insurance companies)

    I think it's easy to confuse corporations giving money to a politician who is going to win with corporations acting as king-makers, especially for those people whose interests are so far from the mainstream that they don't see a difference between the two parties. Those of us who are more center see the two parties as being very different, and corporate support of both is non-specific.

  3. Re:Gotta wonder.... by 3seas · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    .......would have such a spy satellite seen the mortgage meltdown in time to stop it?
    And if not then what is more important than a 700 billion failure, that the spy system can see in time to stop?

  4. Re:Trollish Summary by riceboy50 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Since the MSM decides what is convincing and conveniently editorializes it all for us, I would say most voters never had much of a chance. GP is correct that the public has been spoon fed the two major candidates for quite some time.

    --
    ~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
  5. Re:Trollish Summary by Kagura · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Five candidates were invited to the FOX Republican Primary Debates, and Ron Paul was not one of them. Yeah, I was a crazy Ron Paul-ite, but it really convinced me that Ron Paul was being kept hidden away like GP was suggesting. I didn't follow Obama's primaries, so I don't know about that.

  6. Re:Gotta wonder.... by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anybody who paid attention during the Clinton years saw the mortgage crisis coming.

  7. Re:Trollish Summary by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What evidence do you have that the messages of the remaining candidates resonate with a largely apathetic, willfully ignorant american public?
    If you're answer is the fact that it must be so by virtue of them being the remaining candidates, then your argument is simply circular.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  8. Re:Gotta wonder.... by nawcom · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Obviously no one (including the ones who knew about it during the Clinton years) cared during the GWB years, if you really want to play the game of pointing at people.

    I think it's stupid to try and blame the fault of people starting it. If one has "paid attention" then they should of stopped it. I'm not putting blame on GOP at all; I'm saying that most likely no one saw the issue at all, or they did and simply enjoyed the positive outcome for them somehow.