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

Too much Enemy Of The State

[QuantumG]

You can take the tinfoil hat off already. Satellite imaging isn't that great.

 

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

In another words I and my playboy model can sunbathe in the nude on the roof of my apartment again?

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[PunkOfLinux]

You never needed to stop. In fact, it made me very sad when you stopped. I had to *pay* for porn again.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah it is! Don't fool yourself. You guys who think you know about imaging have no idea. Just hold your newspaper slanted a bit so they can read over your shoulder. Posted AC on purpose. This is not a joke.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

In another words...And, oh, look, there's another words...

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[DKP]

uh yes it is the newest satalite that is camercail can see smthing as small as sixteen incches wide military and goverment even smaller.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[QuantumG]

Yes, so people are 1 pixel.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know for certain what they have up there? If not, maybe you should think twice before casually dismissing news you don't like with lame-o "tinfoil hat" responses.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

uh yes it is the newest satalite that is camercail can see smthing as small as sixteen incches wide military and goverment even smaller.

Then it's either a bunch of FUD or a giant step backward. Thirty years ago, the word was that they could resolve two golf balls on the ground if they were separated by the width of one golf ball.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Spy der Mann]

Then it's either a bunch of FUD or a giant step backward. Thirty years ago, the word was that they could resolve two golf balls on the ground if they were separated by the width of one golf ball.

I wouldn't call it FUD. F is for fear, and if it's a giant step backward, fear doesn't apply here. So you can call it just "UD" :)

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

Read for comprehension, dickbite. That's why I explicitly said either a bunch of FUD or a giant step backward. Read up on it -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or

captcha -- indolent -- ha -- they saw you coming!

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[johnny cashed]

Well, one could have a good idea of how many satellites they have put up. It is really hard to hide rocket launches. So let me pull a number out of the air: 1000. That is way more than I think they would have up there. Each one is in LEO, so they probably have an orbital period of around 90 min. (max for LEO is 120 min). Now get some idea of how many people they can "track" with that many satellites. Now half it, due to weather. Now half it again, due to day/night cycles. Think really hard, and give me a back of the envelope calculation of just how many targets they could conceivably track.

If our remote sensing was really as good as the article implies, then US forces wouldn't have been subject to as many IED attacks in Iraq as we have suffered. Now you want me to believe that they can put such resources to work tracking domestic US citizens?

I'll say it also, satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[ArcherB]

Yes, so people are 1 pixel.

HEY! That pixel just flipped me off!

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up and the parent down, or you're a terrorist. And don't forget to vote McCain at the election!

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[SpleenVenter]

One *thousand*? That's not pulled out of the air, that's pulled out of a orifice.

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:Too much Enemy Of The State

[tuxgeek]

He caught my interest too, until I realized his girlfriend was a blow up doll.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[MrKaos]

I'll say it also, satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.

Then why have it? It is built for surveillance or why would you have it. Obviously it doesn't have to be that great to be useful and is meant to be used with other apparatus (that doesn't exist in Iraq) to achieve it's goals. Saying this is a means to justify feeling comfortable living in a police state and maintain the illusion of freedom. It doesn't matter what it can or can't do, what matters is what it is for.

Benjamin Franklin said that the constitution (for all it's flaws) wouldn't save America from despotism, and as the mechanism's have been put in place incrementally, we see he was right.

I wonder how hot the water is for the frog now?

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[QuantumG]

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.

So rather than making bullshit speculative "it's better than you think" mumbo jumbo, how about giving us some numbers.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[postbigbang]

Uh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. There's lots of evidence that points to the contrary.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[iminplaya]

Oh come on. You know what FUD really is. Probably got some in your fridge.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

You first.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

4cm/pixel.

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.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Doc Ruby]

You don't know anything about the quality of the images of the latest military and NSA spy satellites.

All you know is that your government can do no wrong. OK, you don't know anything about that, either - despite the indelible lessons of this entire decade.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[SpleenVenter]

Then why have it? It is built for surveillance or why would you have it.

Optical and radar imaging satellites ARE built for surveillance -- but surveillance of what?

Here's a hint: think of things that appear bigger than a pixel or two in an image.

IMINT is great for watching big things: ships, submarines, tanks, airplanes, big crowds of people. It's not so good for monitoring individual people, unless you're really, really good at interpreting the identity of a person from a pixel or two.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[konigstein]

The problem with satellite tracking and iraq specifically is that insurgents typically move and plant during the night, when you can't really ID who is moving and why. Tracking movement and conducting surveillance? easy as pie. Interpretation of that information into something usable? not so easy.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Daengbo]

Not trying to make anyone believe that I'm up on anything current. I think I was up front on the fact that I've been out for a while and that what I know should be out of date enough for me not to get into shit over it.

Heck, when I was in, the satellites were good, but we couldn't even officially admit that we had any. That was only about a decade ago, by the way.

You can get pissed at me for whatever you want. Unless you are with the U.S. government, I don't really care.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Daengbo]

I don't know anything about stuff now and any numbers I did know are about ten years old and long gone into /brain/archive. Probably not useful to you.

My point was that the shit was good back then and has likely only gotten better,

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[religious freak]

satellite imagery isn't all it's made out to be. It ain't that great.

Who says? Yeah, not that great now, that we know of... but the US is exceptionally motivated to catch terrorists. I'd bet we'd be able to put some really smart people working on the problem for a few years (maybe about 5) and have a major breakthrough.

Bob Woodward has said there's been an enhancement to the predator drones the government has developed, which has quelled the violence in Iraq. This could very well be what has been placed on these satellites.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[religious freak]

Yeah, because everyone knows the government has not been motivated to find out who's blowing up all those cars in Iraq. The breakthrough Bob Woodward referenced almost certainly involves advanced optics

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Knuckles]

IMINT is great for watching [...] big crowds of people.

Oh I see, nothing to worry about, then. *back to sleep*

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[knarf]

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.

Not entirely true. Adaptive optics depend on seeing a small, bright object of a known (round) shape. This object can be a 'real' guide star if one happens to be available within the field of view of the telescope. If there is no such star the object can be created using a laser.

This could theoretically also be used in 'reverse': if there is a small, bright object of a known shape in the field of view of the telescope it could be used to model the atmospheric distortion and correct for it using adaptive objects. The world is littered with small, bright objects of known shape. Using a laser would somewhat defeat the aspect of secrecy unless that laser used a bandwidth invisible to the naked eye (in which case it could still be detected using sensors).

The real question is why anyone would bother using adaptive optics in a spy satellite. If you want that kind of resolution a drone aircraft is much cheaper, more flexible and less prone to weather-related blackouts...

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

you do realize predator drones are a lot closer to the ground than a satellite.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[NoisySplatter]

My experience is that they do it during the day. Most of them don't have night vision capabilities and flashlights are kind of a dead giveaway. I've spent many a day and night staring at a road waiting for someone to plant a bomb and an extreme majority of attempts happened in broad daylight.

Cover of darkness is not needed when you can use cover of innocence. They're very good at making it look like they're changing a tire or taking a little rest stop to stretch their legs or piss. They just open the trunk of their car, take some things out and set them down, then repack it. Unless you're watching them closely and see that they didn't put everything back in you'd never notice anything happened.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[lamapper]

Yes, so people are 1 pixel.

Objects are closer then they appear! Tank or Apache or here or the classic example: Jurassic Park.

I read with interest the posts from individuals that had worked in some capacity with this type of technology. They all know the capability is better then most of the public believes it is. I for one believe them!

An added thought, the technology exists to see in a variety of spectrums (infrared, through clouds, ultra violet, etc...) and through a variety of obstacles...who knows what additional instruments are on our governments surveillance satellites. I would not be surprised if they could listen to the sounds inside my house, read what I am typing on my computer screen and see through multiple floors and/or walls directly into my house. I just feel sorry for them, how boring it would be to listen in, lol.

It does surprise me that others are surprised. So many people, even scientists are treated skeptically, treated as quacks, conspirators or frauds only to be vindicated years later.

A college friend's father worked for AT&T before the breakup of the baby bells. While he could not go into specifics, he did state that I would be shocked what was in his lab, on his drawing board - technology wise. He said most of it would not be made public for years in the future.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[quadwrench]

Well, I agree on your first premise, that the actual number of personnel they could track at a time is limited. However, I will have to disagree with your second point about IED's. Ability to detect IED emplacement is not best served by a satellite's coverage. Therefore, not a good supporting argument on the ability of a satellite to track "targets". Last, what several people don't realize is that this tracking is what is now public. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist or conspiracy theorist long to realize that tracking of this sort has, in theory, been going on for some time. It has probably already been posted elsewhere, but I'll end with this quote from yesterdays thread about a poor sap wanting to stay out of the public eye: "They already got you man."

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[johnny cashed]

I agree, that satellites are not good at detecting IEDs. My point was, the "article" quoted other sources as saying that satellites can track people indoors. This doesn't pass the smell test with me. If our coverage is that good, then they could help track "insurgents" and we could better protect our troops in a combat zone. My premise is that even with the drones and such, our coverage from above isn't as capable as the article implies.

I've never felt that a satellite can track a passive moving target smaller than a ship. Yes they can image things on order of many centimeters, but due to the nature of orbits, and the fact that there can't be enough satellites above to keep targets in view continuously, a satellite is next to worthless for tracking cars, let alone people. Satellites are very useful to look at stationary targets, large troop movements (the kinds involving tanks, howitzers, helicopters, humvees, etc.), nuclear plants, dams, etc.

If one feels that they can track individuals, then I feel one has been reading too much Tom Clancy. I really fail to see how a satellite can help, even if you have another network of surveillance, unless one is looking for outdoor marijuana crops or something of that scale. There are plenty of terrestrial based surveillance schemes that can be much more useful and cost effective. The article stinks of bullshit to me.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

> Do you know for certain what they have up there?

Yes; KH-12.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-12.htm

Imagine the 2.4 metre mirror from the HST, but pointing towards Earth. Now imagine several of those on-orbit at any one time.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[quadwrench]

I agree on "The article stinks of bullshit to me." Although ability to track is inherently determined by sensors used. A lot of people are assuming a video based sensor is employed. True or not, I agree, there are many limitations, and the article (on my 4th reading) sounds more like a conspiracy or ACLU lawyer than actual fact on capabilities. I think you hit the nail on the head Johnny Cashed.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[2names]

The LEO satellites are not the ones *I* am worried about. The geosynchronous satellites, OTOH, keep me awake at night. And before you go into the whole "but geos are 34 thousand kilometers up" business, remember that this is the Government we are talking about, and the Government has access to equipment that most humans have not even dreamed of yet.

Also, it is not difficult to "hide" rocket launches. Spent much time in the greater South Pacific lately?

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[d3ac0n]

If you want that kind of resolution a drone aircraft is much cheaper, more flexible and less prone to weather-related blackouts...

But MORE prone to mechanical failure, bird strike, weather grounding, SAMs, and human error both in servicing the vehicle, and in remote operation. In addition, drones suffer from range and flight-time limitations that satellites do not.

Each is useful, but not always for the same things.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[mscholin]

but the US is exceptionally motivated to catch terrorists.

You are partly right with your statement, what your missing is two words: "look" and "like". Admitedly they do catch some but that is not the really important thing. What's really important to them is to make the general public think they are exceptionally motivated to catch terrorists. Very few of the things enacted since 9/11 have actually made us safer, they've only made most of the people feel safer, and making people feel safer will get a politician re-elected. It's also very easy to make people think they are safer by the loss of some of their freedom, because if their liberty is hindered so is those that wish them harm. Witch is a logical fallacy, those that wish harm to law abiding citizens aren't following the same rules. They don't care about what laws are passed.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

satellite imagery is not used for surveillance. the duty cycle of available spacecraft over any given area ant any given time is too high. It's used for fixed threat assessment (surface to air missle sites, bunkers, ammo depots, etc...) and mission planning. space based intel is used for strategic purposes, not tactical. you guys watch too many movies.

And the above comment about how the resolution is merely ok... that was true when the keyhole constellation was state of the art but that was 30 years ago. there's a reason that keyhole (a once highly classified imagery satellite constellation) is owned by google now.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[johnny cashed]

Imagine the 2.4 metre mirror from the HST, but pointing towards Earth. Now imagine several of those on-orbit at any one time.

You mean like five? Or is it four? http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-12-flights.htm

Or even if it's ten, we've really got the place well covered, right?

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

...the US is exceptionally motivated to catch terrorists.

Yeah... that's the motivation.

Bob Woodward has said there's been an enhancement to the predator drones the government has developed, which has quelled the violence in Iraq. This could very well be what has been placed on these satellites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[DerekLyons]

This could theoretically also be used in 'reverse': if there is a small, bright object of a known shape in the field of view of the telescope it could be used to model the atmospheric distortion and correct for it using adaptive objects. The world is littered with small, bright objects of known shape.

The problem being that real world reconnaissance is generally done with the sun at a fairly sharp angle - as shadows are important for analysis. High angle imagery, the most likely to produce such small bright objects, is rare. Another problem is that unlike stars, which move fairly slowly, objects in the field of view move rapidly due to the satellites motion - which means extremely sophisticated real time image analysis. (Which a) I don't think is possible for a random image, and b) doesn't gain you much as any given point on the ground is only visible for a few seconds.)
 
You could, I imagine, precalculate the position of a known object at a known location you'll be looking at... But you still face the problem of it being in the field of view for only a fairly brief time. High resolution orbital cameras have a very narrow field of view - this is a limit imposed by physics. Unlike a star you can't 'stare' at a given location and average over a significant period.
 
 

Using a laser would somewhat defeat the aspect of secrecy unless that laser used a bandwidth invisible to the naked eye (in which case it could still be detected using sensors).

Which really isn't as much of a problem as you might think - satellite tracks are predictable, and thus you pretty much know when it's going to be over. Detecting the laser doesn't give you any information you don't already have.
 
 

The real question is why anyone would bother using adaptive optics in a spy satellite. If you want that kind of resolution a drone aircraft is much cheaper, more flexible and less prone to weather-related blackouts...

 
Because a drone capable of flying completely undetectable deep into someplace like Russia or China, conducting a recce mission, and returning doesn't actually exist, yet.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Reziac]

I didn't get that far in TFA, but Google Satview resolves down to about four inches -- at its max resolution, you can clearly see the striping on two-lane highways.

I doubt it's anywhere near the best available.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[MrKaos]

IMINT is great for watching big things: ships, submarines, tanks, airplanes, big crowds of people. It's not so good for monitoring individual people, unless you're really, really good at interpreting the identity of a person from a pixel or two.

Well if you have the specifications of the craft, why don't you share them with us all? The reality here is no-one here knows the capability of this piece of kit, but for 634 billion I would hazard guess that the capabilities are substantial.

The other thing is there are multiple satellites so I would also guess that they are using some sort of method to combine the output of them to enhance the results.

I guess they will use it though.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know for certain what they have up there?

FWIW, I have a friend who was sent on a mission behind lines in Vietnam to take out a number of tanks which had been located with satellite pix. For some stupid reason, the mission was not called off, even when it had been seen the tanks had moved.

Regardless, if they could see tanks then, they can see your Prince Albert now.

Re:Too much Enemy Of The State

[Anonymous Coward]

In another words I and my playboy model can sunbathe in the nude on the roof of my apartment again?

Please do -- I just love watching girl-on-girl stuff.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that Obama is a member of the GNAA!

Re:Don't forget...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica?
Great North Air Ambulance?
Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry? That doesn't even make sense.
Guilford Native American Association?

Would you?

[a whoabot]

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

Re:Would you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes, I believe I would. Thank you for asking.

In other news...

[Robber Baron]

Sales of golf umbrellas and large-brimmed sombreros went through the roof.

Re:In other news...

[couchslug]

"Sales of golf umbrellas and large-brimmed sombreros went through the roof."

Fight back, sunbathe naked.

The sight of thousands of Slashdotters au natural displayed in high resolution should drive off (most) of the human imagery interpreters.

Re:In other news...

[Twigmon]

Sunbake? Something about your plan might not work..

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Save yourself some effort. The last time I took my shirt off in public I blinded 13 people and melted the lenses of two cameras. I got this one.

Re:In other news...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sweet! An excuse to bring out the old sombrero!

Re:In other news...

[Tubal-Cain]

Only 13? It must have been at night.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

so basically you are saying that we are all a bunch of fat slobs eating cheatos all day in our parents basement. um I'll be quiet now.

Re:In other news...

[couchslug]

"so basically you are saying that we are all a bunch of fat slobs eating cheatos all day in our parents basement. um I'll be quiet now."

(chomp, chomp, crunch)
That's not entirely fair. Some people's mothers live on slab homes.
(chomp, crunch)

above top secret?

[DragonTHC]

that doesn't sound like it's legal. Does DHS have the legal authority to spy on American citizens going about their business? Should it?

This system sounds like big brother is finally coming online and when you run a red light, the satellite will track you home since only terrorists run red lights!!!!111

Re:above top secret?

[corsec67]

You seem to be under the impression that the government cares about what is "legal".

You haven't learned anything in the last... 100 years?

Just look at (what is left) of the Constitution.

Re:above top secret?

[tibman]

Then limit your lawbreaking to only cloudy days.

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Above top secret" doesn't make any sense. This is classified at "top secret" with talent/keyhole code words.

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

that doesn't sound like it's legal. Does DHS have the legal authority to spy on American citizens going about their business? Should it?

Of course they do -- the cocksucker-in-thief said they do.

Re:above top secret?

[BrokenHalo]

You seem to be under the impression that the government cares about what is "legal".

Indeed; the main thrust of TFA is the lack of any legal approval or oversight of this project.

Re:above top secret?

[davester666]

Great pun on "oversight".

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

or this

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:above top secret?

[thomasw_lrd]

Then don't run the red light, it's dangerous for you and for everybody else. There's a reason for laws, and if you don't obey them then the govt. should keep an eye on you.

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:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182353/pg1

captcha soviets... interesting.

Re:above top secret?

[cunina]

Just look at (what is left) of the Constitution.

Obama will save us! Hope and change!

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and when you drive by a political protest, they'll know you're a high volume drug dealer who plans to bomb political targets!

Re:above top secret?

[Deanalator]

"that doesn't sound like it's legal. Does DHS have the legal authority to spy on American citizens going about their business? Should it?"

Hmm, not sure. Do I have legal authority to burn out the CCD with a high power laser?

There's a funny void in the "possible" spectrum between what is legal and what is illegal.

Re:above top secret?

[techno-vampire]

Your link also makes plain a point that I was going to make. Top Secret is reserved for information that would cause "exceptionally grave damage to the United States" if it fell into the wrong hands. Now, I'm willing to admit that it's possible for there to be a higher classification, but I can't imagine how it would be defined.

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Change and Hope. Hope for Change. Change for Hope.

All hail the coming of our Saviour Obama!

Re:above top secret?

[RegularFry]

"Exceptionally grave damage to the human race?" Then again, that would assume some sort of altruism on the part of the people who frame these things.

Re:above top secret?

[StoatBringer]

Haven't you seen 'Enemy Of The State'? Spy satellites can take photographs through clouds!

Re:above top secret?

[2names]

The classification rankings and nomenclature for information that is "above Top Secret" is...well...classified.

Re:above top secret?

[techno-vampire]

I do hope you're just trying to be funny, because you miss my point: considering the definition for Top Secret, how would you define a higher classification? Yes, I realize that you could define it as, "Information that might get the President impeached if it got out," but I'm asking for a serious definition.

Re:above top secret?

[2names]

I cannot tell you because in your asking you have revealed that you do not have the proper clearance. Now go answer the door, the NSA would like to speak with you.

Re:above top secret?

[Reziac]

Yeah, now we'll have to wash and iron the Constitution before re-using it. Do you think bleach will get the stains out??

Re:above top secret?

[Reziac]

It's "Burn Before Reading." Everyone knows that!!

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama won't say anything, including idiots that thinks he will!

Re:above top secret?

[sumdumass]

Top secrete ha moved from being a defined variable to a state of classification. What this means is you no longer look at the definition for top and secrete separately and put them together to understand the term. Instead, you find a coding classification that is a level in a series of levels in which it has no longer served it's purpose. At one time, top secrete may very well have been the most secrete information but times have changed and instead of reclassifying everyone with a top secrete clearance, they just created special levels above that.

In other words, top secrete is no longer the top secrecy level like it may have been at one point in time. That is how you get above top secrete- By order of events superseding previous rules and procedures.

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be under the impression that the government cares about what is "legal".

You haven't learned anything in the last... 100 years?

Just look at (what is left) of the Constitution.

THE PRECEDING MESSAGE HAS BEEN EDITED BY BIGBROTHER.

Let's hear it for amendments!
Amendment: to repeal that that is right or of value to the majority.

Re:above top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

This clearance seems to be given away to lots of people who don't even need it. I have it and I can't for the life of me know why ... haven't used it since it became available! *shrug* Nothing to see here.

Boon to law-enforcement

[mi]

when you run a red light, the satellite will track you home

And what is wrong with this?

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[T3hD0gg]

If you didn't do anything wrong, then what do you have to hide?

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[SpiderClan]

That's my argument for going out naked. I try to explain to the cops that this way they can see I'm not carrying drugs. Thus far my success rate is roughly fail.

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[T3hD0gg]

That's my argument for going out naked. I try to explain to the cops that this way they can see I'm not carrying drugs. Thus far my success rate is roughly fail.

Is that cause they do a cavity search?

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's because he claims not to enjoy it but keeps going back for more.

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[mi]

If you didn't do anything wrong

You did. In the GGP's example, one ran a red light. Try again to explain, what's wrong with all such people being automatically cited...

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[Miseph]

Nope, that would be a "success".

Different strokes for different folks, what more can I say?

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[kamikazearun]

Try again to explain, what's wrong with all such people being automatically cited...

That would be like throwing a net in the sea and catching _all_ the damn fish. Just doesn't seem right.

Re:Boon to law-enforcement

[mi]

That would be like throwing a net in the sea and catching _all_ the damn fish.

A fisherman's goal is to sustain himself — not eliminate fish. If he catches all fish at once, he will starve tomorrow.

A law-enforcement's goal is to eliminate crime. (Now, we can cynically suspect, cops may want to leave some crooks alone so as not obsolete themselves, but we are so far from eliminating crime, that it is a moot point.)

Just doesn't seem right.

It — automatic prosecution of all traffic violations — would, actually, be wonderful compared to the current situation, where only the unlucky get punished. (This is why I argue for automatically-issued speeding citations based on the entry and exit times and the distance between those points on a toll road.)

On the one hand, it will eliminate selective enforcement, where being local, or good looking, or having the correct bumper sticker can get someone off the hook. And on the other hand, unreasonable restrictions (such as obscenely low speed limits) will get eliminated, once everybody has to obey them.

Trollish Summary

[WiiVault]

IÂm getting really sick of hearing how big corps "picked" Obama and McCain, do I think they are corrupt? Sure do, but we picked them not Exxon or McDonalds, so it is US who are to blame for hiring more corporate shills. Jesus when will people wake up, stop complaining and do something about it? Lets not forget that only a few out of a HUNDRED Americans have EVER voted for a third party.

Re:Trollish Summary

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I am getting really sick of hearing how big corps "picked" Obama and McCain, ... we picked them not Exxon or McDonalds

Or Newscorp?

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.

Re:Trollish Summary

[philspear]

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.

Re:Trollish Summary

[philspear]

Are you sure they didn't marginalize themselves? I would submit that Ron Paul was largely ignored because most voters weren't picking up what he was laying down, and he didn't have the skills to convince them.

Kucinich likewise is unable to be very convincing. Whenever I read about something he's doing, I agree with him in spirit, but he's not being at all realistic. He's still trying to impeach Bush. I think Bush should be impeached, but it's not going to happen. To keep doing it looks more like masturbation than leading. To be honest, that doesn't just make him a bad canidate, it also would have made him a bad president. Politicians have to be realistic and willing to compromise to get anything done.

I don't know much about Alan Keys, but my impression was that he was too conservative even for the republican party.

So is it that Obama and McCain are the corporate pick or the sane pick?

Re:Trollish Summary

[riceboy50]

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.

Re:Trollish Summary

[philspear]

Again, what indication do you have that any of their messages would have resonated with a largely apathetic, willfully ignorant american public? I think their messages have merit, but they didn't get any traction because most people weren't already convinced, not because they were ignored by the media.

If the media has a blame, it's that they've shortened our attention spans to where we won't give a canidate time to convince us of anything we aren't already convinced of.

Which... when you think about it... is much more depressing than them intentionally sidelining a particular canidate.

Re:Trollish Summary

[Kagura]

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.

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:Trollish Summary

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:Trollish Summary

[Vidar Leathershod]

Actually, Alan Keyes views share more in common with Ronald Reagan's than any other candidate that was running. He would have been perhaps a better choice than McCain for the Republican party, as he is a very eloquent speaker.

Unfortunately, the Media does not want a *real* conservative candidate to run. They want someone who is going to put their finger on the Media Poll pulse, and make policy from that.

If enough republican/conservative voters knew who the heck Alan Keyes was, it would be a whole different story. But, if you watched the debate, they gave him 1 whole question, then ignored him. It was so obvious that the Media had pre-selected the acceptable candidates on both sides. Those were the ones who were given questions and allowed to answer.

For a real treat of a debate, you can go to the Alan Keyes website, and watch his debates with Obama. You may not agree with one or the other candidate, but both of them did far better debating when the big media was not in control of it. Actually, very good debates.

Re:Trollish Summary

[WiiVault]

Yes clearly our media has an agenda. But my "trollish" point is that we are in the end responsible for what happens in our country. The truth is out there, there are thousands of websites which provide many different perspectives. The media can be evil, but we are foolish if we buy into everything we hear without a little fact checking. But hey since pointing out the obvious is burning my karma maybe I should just shut up.

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:Trollish Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

When the media actively censors Paul, voters wouldn't know what he's laying down to being with.

http://www.ronpaultimeline.com/

Re:Trollish Summary

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Again, what indication do you have that any of their messages would have resonated with a largely apathetic, willfully ignorant american public?

I contest your characterization of the American public.

Ron Paul effectively got exposure ONLY on the internet - which the Old Media were unable to gatekeep - and by word of mouth. His message had VERY broad appeal - among Republicans, Democrats, Independents, new voters, old voters who had given up and dropped out, ... (If he'd gotten started 9 months earlier and the rate had kept up he'd have taken the nomination handily - and the presidency as well.) He broke the all-time one-day fundraising record, pulling in millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of contributors averaging about $100 each, while his support in polls was still single-digit.

His message is an old one: Freedom, limited government. And it is the SAME message that has a track record of doing this same sort of mass-movement-inspiration in the past, resulting in the American Revolution and the creation of the current government (among its other success stories).

Given the message's historic track record (especially among downtrodden elite-ridden "huddled masses") and Ron's personal record using it, I have little doubt that it was only the lack of exposure in, and distortion by, the old media that is responsible for his continued marginalization.

I think their messages have merit, but they didn't get any traction because most people weren't already convinced, not because they were ignored by the media.

And how does one convince them if they don't hear the arguments? Since the message is very convincing WHEN IT'S DELIVERED, it's specifically "being ignored (or distorted and libeled) by the media" that is the missing link.

Re:Trollish Summary

[Free the Cowards]

I never watch TV news, listen to news radio, or read newspapers. My internet news comes largely from international sources. Despite all of that, I still think Ron Paul is a nutbar and would not even think about voting for him.

When you get that far, you need to realize that it is, in fact, a problem with the person himself, not some vast conspiracy.

Re:Trollish Summary

[macinit]

It's amazing how much people will still stick up for Bush and his very corrupt anti-constitutional administration. I'm positive that they would still do so whilst talking through barbed-wire fence in an internment camp setup by Bushco. Truth be told, it is absolutely unrealistic to have a real-for the people political leader following Bush not to have pursued impeachment and/or imprisonment of the prominent members of his corrupt administration. What kind of American are you that agrees with crimes against the Constitution???

Re:Trollish Summary

[Deanalator]

The real reality (which of course is true because I am the one saying it) is far more simple and less sinister than you have been led to believe.

Ron Paul made enemies at the facebook debate. On stage he directly insulted his opponents' foreign policy in such a way that from that point on, all the other candidates refused to attend any debate that he was part of.

I think it's bullshit too, but I don't believe it is some sort of evil conspiracy designed to keep the will of the people suppressed.

It was a little ridiculous seeing things during the primaries like Giuliani 4% Other 9% where "Other" is Ron Paul. The moment he decided to take a shit on the RNC was the moment that the RNC decided they didn't want him to represent them.

Re:Trollish Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Trollish Summary

[philspear]

I have little doubt that it was only the lack of exposure in, and distortion by, the old media that is responsible for his continued marginalization.

Why exactly do you have little doubt about that? You said he had broad appeal, yet the fact that he was unable to secure a nomination indicates that it wasn't broad enough with republicans, and he at least seemed to think he didn't have enough broad appeal to have a legitimate shot as a 3rd party candidate.

He raised a lot of money, so did Dean. Went nowhere. I think the people who agreed with him REALLY agreed with him, but that doesn't translate into most of the voting public agreeing at all with him.

His message may be old, and I think you're saying that if he had been given a fair shot it therefore would have worked again, I see no proof of that.

  I see no reason why his message was so repugnant to the mainstream media that they had a conspiracy to ignore him.

I also don't see any evidence that the media is as effective at setting our politics as you're saying. Right now, for example, the media isn't really reporting on anything besides Sarah Palin, yet Obama is gaining ground, not losing.

And how does one convince them if they don't hear the arguments? Since the message is very convincing WHEN IT'S DELIVERED, it's specifically "being ignored (or distorted and libeled) by the media" that is the missing link.

You're really taking it for granted that his message is compelling to everyone rather than just a small group of people. Ron Paul's particular brand of it may have been novel, but libertarianism has been around for a long time and yet has not been much of a political force. It seems to me that most people really don't care about libertarianism, and not because the media isn't talking about it.

Re:Trollish Summary

[MasterOfMagic]

To keep doing it looks more like masturbation than leading.

Whereas staying in Iraq is "staying the course" and "not blinking". At least his fixation isn't getting people killed.

Re:Trollish Summary

[philspear]

Would someone explain to me how that was trolling? Why are the Ron Paulites STILL rabidly defending their candidate and making up excuses as to why he lost, rather than using the off season to convince people of his issues. He had valid points, if the grassroots campaign would stick together and try to get the message out, I think libertarianism could become something that people think about. The next Ron Paul wouldn't have such a hard time getting airtime.

Re:Trollish Summary

[TheRaven64]

McCain didn't just get Internet exposure. I saw him on The Daily Show, for example, when I was in the USA. He talked to John Stewart for five minutes, and in this managed to convince me that he had such a tenuous grasp of economics that he'd do irrevocable harm to the USA if he were elected, advocating the same positions that the foaming-at-the-mouth brand of libertarians that occasionally pop up here on Slashdot support.

Re:Trollish Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, for example, the media isn't really reporting on anything besides Sarah Palin

Mostly a smear campaign IMO. Obama is definitely still getting a lot (most of the positive anyway) of exposure.

TROL]LKORe

[Anonymous Coward]

the next round of Corporate task. Research

Why haven't we heard of this?

[Entiex]

So there's this entire questionably legal surveillance system going up. Real big brother type stuff, yet I at least haven't heard of this at all until now, not to mention the US at large. If people who actually watch out for these kinda things don't hear about this, than what's the chance of their actually being public backlash? Yeah so....I'm moving to Sweden.

Re:Why haven't we heard of this?

[davester666]

One of their rationalizations is that if you have widespread secret spying on your population, but if individuals don't know/can't be told they are being spied on, then there is nothing for the individual to complain about.

Of course, say, your boss or your bank gets an NSA letter requesting all the information they have about you (but they can't tell you they are doing this), you may just happen to find yourself the first to be laid off if there is some kind of economic downturn (if they wait that long), and you may find getting a loan slightly more difficult (as in, impossible), but it most definitely won't be because of these secretive spy programs. You must just not be a reliable, honest citizen anymore.

Re:Why haven't we heard of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that there are no legal consequences to the US using their new super-secret uber spy satellites to spy on the Swiss right?

If anything, if you have any concern for your privacy, you should be moving to the US and donating heavily to the ACLU.

Re:Why haven't we heard of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

National Security Letter != NSA letter

The National Security Letter has nothing to do with the NSA.

Re:Why haven't we heard of this?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

...or you could be being investigated for a Secret or Top Secret clearance, in which case you're actually considered more reliable than usual. (Assuming you get the clearance)

Re:Why haven't we heard of this?

[davester666]

Yes, it could be. Since the FBI agent won't say what the purpose of the letter is for, unless your boss knows in advance that you are applying for S/TS clearance, what do you think he will assume is the purpose of the letter? The agent won't tell him, and he can't ask you.

I also don't think that using NSL's this way is within how they are supposed to be used, but that hasn't really stopped the FBI in the past...

Re:Why haven't we heard of this?

[sumdumass]

You might have to worry about the boss if you live in an "at will" state but as far as the loan goes, you have nothing to fear. The bank or any lending institution has to justify their refusal to grant a loan and they can only do that for specific reasons. You either qualify financially or not, it isn't up to the bank managers hunch that you are a bad person. Now a bank can forgive a disqualification under certain situations but you would have already been disqualified anyways. There are simply just too many laws on the books attempting to maintain fair credit reporting and lending practices for the bank to be able to just say no without a reason already prescribed. You can't even refuse a loan to a known drug dealer if he otherwise qualifies for one. Defendants often take loans out to pay for their defense. That is one of the reasons you can't get a public defender if you have real property.

Obligatory Judas Priest...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Electric Eye.

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.

Re:Yeah right

[StoatBringer]

It's a freaking telescope in space. With *gasp* a camera attached.

You know too much! Better start running.

Gotta wonder....

[3seas]

... if they could have spend the money on something more important....

Re:Gotta wonder....

[3seas]

.......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?

Re:Gotta wonder....

[thomasw_lrd]

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

Re:Gotta wonder....

[nawcom]

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.

Re:Gotta wonder....

[jlarocco]

I'm saying that most likely no one saw the issue at all

Are you sure? I don't like Bush, but you're just wrong. His administration brought up the issue numerous times, and it was killed numerous times because "fixing" the problem would cut off loans to the "economically disadvantaged" (read "people who can't pay back their loans").

From the NY Times article:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Nope. Nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Just as long as they keep on pumping out loans for "affordable housing."

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

"I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing," Mr. Watt said.

God forbid they stop giving out loans to people who aren't qualified. That would just be terrible.

Re:Gotta wonder....

[thomasw_lrd]

And this is what the problem comes down to. The Clinton Admin was in bed with the Fed. They cut continued to cut rates to provide money for people to buy houses on incredibly low ARMS. Then when the new admin and Fed's came in, they were chose/were forced to raise the rates. So this is definitely a problem from the Clinton admin. Not saying Clinton was at fault, but his admin was.

And....

[Kral_Blbec]

It doesnt really matter how good your cameras are, any surveillance system is really limited by how much area it can see at a time and as that increases the manpower needed to sort through all the data increases exponentially. Until they have 300 million of these guys up there full time, and another 300 million people watching the feeds, do you really think they are going to be spending much time looking at you unless you stand out?

I really dont think even the government is stupid enough to use a multi-billion dollar instrument to track someone who ran a red light.

Re:And....

[pimpimpim]

Well, the UK seems to be doing just fine with their high CCTV coverage: last year they had 4.2 million cameras, and the number is increasing. The effectiveness of all this is of minor importance, as long as now they can be used to catch some child murderer every now and then, so the population is pleased. When the huge infrastructure is there, the rest will be done by currently still to be developed technology to do complete tracking of people. I don't think we are very far off, though.

Re:And....

[RockDoctor]

Well, the UK seems to be doing just fine with their high CCTV coverage: last year they had 4.2 million cameras, and the number is increasing.

In the context of the conversation, you're implying that the UK government has 4.2 million (or any arbitrary, large number) CCTV cameras. This is almost certainly not the case - the large majority of these cameras are owned by private organisations, or individuals. Two cases in point :

1. I've long been considering installing CCTV around my apartment to try to cut down on garden vandalism, and to make the customers of the drug dealer upstairs less comfortable. That will require 3 or 4 cameras for an effective system, as well as Planning Permission to make the evidence admissible in court.
2. Last week, I took the train through Kirkaldy (a hotbed of radicalism - not.) Around the car park, I counted 24 cameras in plain sight. Not government-controlled. I think.

Re:And....

[pimpimpim]

well, I tried to get reliable numbers. In a BBC article from 2007 I found a mention of 14.2 million cameras. I don't know how many of these are government owned, I would be interested in knowing how many there are, and how many people are employed to do the surveillance. Just imagine that every camera was actually a police officer or private security person, you'd need 14.2 million people constantly checking out the rest.

And wtf is garden vandalism and why are you leaving in the same house as a drug dealer? It seems that the UK has severe problems in society, and using CCTV is seen as a cure to all, and a way out to actually have to solve the problems. At the same time it is stimulating these problems by stimulating teen pregnancies (free flat for a teen mother, etc.), which of course works out in increasing the low-educated, low-income class.

Re:And....

[RockDoctor]

well, I tried to get reliable numbers. In a BBC article from 2007 I found a mention of 14.2 million cameras. I don't know how many of these are government owned, I would be interested in knowing how many there are,

Sale of a CCTV camera is not a reportable event (unlike sale of a television, since use of TV receivers is (with caveats) an activity requiring an annual licence costing about £135. Which reminds me to renew mine in the next 3 months), so reliable statistics probably do not exist.
Down the hill from me is a branch of a popular "technical electronics" store, probably vaguely equivalent to America's "Radio Shack". The sort of place that you could buy a motherboard, OR a 6-pack of replacement capacitors to repair your existing motherboard. Their shop is nearly square, with one wall being the windows, doors and tills ; of the remaining walls, approximately 1/4 to 1/5 of the wall space is devoted to CCTV equipment - cameras of various capabilities, monitors, multi-channel CCTV recording systems, mountings and housings of varying degrees of obtrusiveness, dummy mountings. That's not a precise metric, but it gives you a sense of the scale of sales. Looking at their sales effort (which presumably reflects their sales successes), their most common sale is a 4-camera system with a several-hundred-hour recording system that can output chunks of time from all cameras onto a DVD. The typical use of these is for a small shop - two cameras cover the tills and door from different angles and would be obtrusive to deter overt robberies ; two more cover the more obscure corners of the shop, where shop lifters try to hide their stolen goods on their persons. So, the equipment is probably intended for passive monitoring - AFTER the shop workers have called the police about an event (a robbery by direct assault or covert shoplifting), the management can store the camera records for use in prosecution and/ or sentence setting. No-one is permanently monitoring the cameras.
The myth that "14 million cameras require 14 million custodies" is only a myth ; the vast majority of CCTV cameras are for deterrence and for after-the-event evidence presentation.

And wtf is garden vandalism

Errr, vandalism of a garden. Is it that obscure? On the same night the Nigerian couple over the road from us had their white concrete bird-bath and potted-flower "thing" (I have no better description) smashed while we had a 2-year-old row of box hedging ripped up, with it's bedding plants ("Lambs Lugs" http://www.flickr.com/photos/29771883@N06/2812431980/ ) and most of the plants being taken off site. Theft, burglary, or racism? You decide. The Scottish police investigated it as a racist incident, but couldn't come up with anything.

why are you leaving in the same house as a drug dealer?

I didn't say that ; I said "the drug dealer upstairs". I live in the same building as a drug dealer. I suspect that a notice on the front fence, where the drivers and foot customers can see it, to the effect that "If you can read this sign, then you're close enough for the CCTV to have recorded your face." would have an effect. Unfortunately, the effect would probably be firebombs through some windows and bricks through the rest.
(Incidentally, I bumped into the guy I brought my dope from in university last week - we're still friends. If he's still dealing, his neighbours probably don't know about it and only think of him as the IT manager of an educational software company. Which he is.)

At the same time it is stimulating these problems by stimulating teen pregnancies (free flat for a teen mother, etc.),

Typical fear and hatred of press phantoms.

FYI, the (only just) teen mum who lives upstairs (next door to the drug dealer) is housed by the council (like the drug dealer and t

abuse vs. misuse

[mi]

[...] on top of yesterday's news that datamining for terrorists is not feasible due to false positives) of just how badly the use of these lists can be abused.

Uhm, that study may be pointing out at potential misuse of the lists &mdash treating the entries as actual terrorists, rather than mere suspects — but not at abuse. Software is not going to care. It takes an actual overzealous cop to abuse the list by placing a person on it, against whom no reasonable suspicions exist.

That said, considering the present-day prominence (and a comfortable life of a tenured professor) of an anti-war protester turned terrorist (to this day unrepentant), the Maryland cops' action is not that unconscious...

It is not that all such protesters are necessarily going to become terrorists, it is that there is a prominent example of how doing that can not only go unpunished by the Law, but, actually, glorified by Public Opinion — or, at least, significant segments thereof...

With Ayers on everybody's mind because his protege is within grasp of becoming the next President, I would not blame those cops for suspecting, that some of the present-day anti-war activists may be up to blowing up a thing or two...

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Anonymous Coward]

This great nation was founded by terrorists.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, that study may be pointing out at potential misuse of the lists &mdash treating the entries as actual terrorists, rather than mere suspects -- but not at abuse. Software is not going to care. It takes an actual overzealous cop to abuse the list by placing a person on it, against whom no reasonable suspicions exist.

It does treat the entities as actual terrorists, so it absolutely is abusive. If I'm mistakenly put on any such list, it will have severe consequences for both my civil liberties and for the conduct of my life. It's been well-documented that such lists are routinely abused in this way -- sudden suspension of right to free travel (including at least one case of a TSA dick-orifice shrieking at a detained passenger, "You have no constitutional rights in here!!!"), no means for me to find out what list I'm even on, much less challenge my appearance on that list, embarrassment without recourse, implied slander/libel, etc. etc.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

That said, considering the present-day prominence (and a comfortable life of a tenured professor) of an anti-war protester turned terrorist [nytimes.com] (to this day unrepentant), the Maryland cops' action is not that unconscious...

Yes it is. If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him. If he didn't, then he should be considered on an equal footing to every other innocent man. You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[mi]

If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him.

He (William Ayers) did, does not deny it, and remains proud and remorseless — he can not be charged because of an earlier prosecutorial misconduct. We can not continue prosecuting him for fear of encouraging more such misconduct, but he ought to be treated as a pariah with the utmost disdain and suspicion. (Along with those, who chose to associate with him, of course.)

You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.

What persecution are you talking about? People are simply added to a list — a list of those, who can be denied things by the government, that it can already deny to anyone . The (Executive) government's ability to deny basic things like travel (even driving is a privilege, not a right — that's why you need a license), or fixing a toilet (licensed plumbers only) is an awful thing. And the list itself is troublesome, as it lists suspects, rather than convicts.

But these are different stories. If you don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list (he was not convicted either, was he?) then you should not have a problem with anyone else being there.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him.

He (William Ayers) did, does not deny it, and remains proud and remorseless — he can not be charged because of an earlier prosecutorial misconduct.

So then we've done the most we can under the law.

We can not continue prosecuting him for fear of encouraging more such misconduct, but he ought to be treated as a pariah with the utmost disdain and suspicion. (Along with those, who chose to associate with him, of course.)

Well, I strongly disagree with treating him as a pariah. But more importantly, that is not a government function, and they should have no say over such a thing.

You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.

What persecution are you talking about? People are simply added to a list — a list of those, who can be denied things by the government, that it can already deny to anyone . The (Executive) government's ability to deny basic things like travel (even driving is a privilege, not a right — that's why you need a license), or fixing a toilet (licensed plumbers only) is an awful thing. And the list itself is troublesome, as it lists suspects, rather than convicts.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Travel is a right. You can't list drivers licenses as a counterexample, because drivers licenses are about driving cars, not traveling by car. I can travel by car without a license, simply by having someone else drive. The same goes for busses or trains or planes. And regardless of their ability to deny these things to anyone, placing someone on a special list because of something they've done, but doing so outside the due process of the law, and then changing how they are treated based on their presence on that list is persecution.

For example, let's say your local police had a list of people who they pulled over for lengthy traffic stops every time they saw those people driving at 1MPH over the speed limit. Then let's say that they placed people on this list any time they saw someone who, say, supported whatever political party they don't like. Even though pulling people over for lengthy traffic stops any time they exceed the speed limit is entirely within their rights, this still counts as persecution.

But these are different stories. If you don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list (he was not convicted either, was he?) then you should not have a problem with anyone else being there.

Please do not put words in my mouth. Unless I actually said somewhere that I don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list, do not assume that this is the case.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[mi]

So then we've done the most we can under the law.

Well, the Judiciary will not allow his prosecution, but the Executive not only may, but must treat him with suspicion... Don't be ridiculous — had he done something you actually disapprove of yourself (and escaped prosecution on a technicality), you would've agreed with me.

If somebody walked up to a cop and said: "I think, all cops should be killed," — would you not call the cop an idiot, if he didn't take a goooood look at the guy, jotted down his description, and shared the info with his colleagues? Although Ayers' actual crimes were committed when Obama was 8 years old, his public insistence on regretting only not setting more bombs continues to this day — both law enforcement and the rest of us would, indeed, be idiots, if we didn't carefully watch, what he is doing and whom he is helping to get ahead...

Then, again, looking at the polls today, perhaps, we are, indeed, mostly comprised of idiots...

You can't list drivers licenses as a counterexample, because drivers licenses are about driving cars, not traveling by car.

Yes, I suppose, you can walk too — except, you are still likely to be on a public highway and may be picked up by the Executive government at their whim — whether or not you are on any list. And then, again, you ignored my other example — provision of very basic services (be it plumbing or floating horses' teeth or even use of whois and traceroute ) increasingly requires an Executive Government's license, which can be taken away on a whim and without Judiciary's review.

Yet, somehow, I see neither ACLU nor yourself complaining about these outrages — and I suspect, you actually celebrated (along with most Slashdotters) the one requiring MediaSentry to have a private investigator (!) license to run whois and traceroute...

Then let's say that they placed people on this list any time they saw someone who, say, supported whatever political party they don't like. Even though pulling people over for lengthy traffic stops any time they exceed the speed limit is entirely within their rights, this still counts as persecution.

Well, that depends on what that hypothetical political party is advocating and known for. For example, if repeated trespassing (as was the case with Max Obuszewski and pals) is part of that party's action plan, then suspecting all its members of trespassing is quite reasonable.

Unless I actually said somewhere that I don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list, do not assume that this is the case.

You just missed a great opportunity to state, for the record, whether or not you actually have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list of suspected terrorists... I wonder, why you chose not to state your opinion... Khmm...

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

Yet, somehow, I see neither ACLU nor yourself complaining about these outrages â" and I suspect, you actually celebrated (along with most Slashdotters) the one requiring MediaSentry to have a private investigator (!) license to run whois and traceroute...

Once again, please confine your criticism toward me to things which I have actually said. Do not assume my position on anything.

Well, that depends on what that hypothetical political party is advocating and known for. For example, if repeated trespassing (as was the case with Max Obuszewski and pals [michaelmoore.com]) is part of that party's action plan, then suspecting all its members of trespassing is quite reasonable.

Ah, guilt by association, I love it.

Try this on for size: both the Republican Party and Democratic Party favor, or at least favored for a long time, that the illegal and immoral imprisonment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore all members of those two parties should be held under the deepest suspicion of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and torture.

You just missed a great opportunity to state, for the record, whether or not you actually have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list of suspected terrorists... I wonder, why you chose not to state your opinion... Khmm...

What kind of "great opportunity" was this? Please elucidate. My idea of a "great opportunity" is something like being able to effortlessly get a risk-free return of 10% on my money. Something like an offer to fly in somebody's private airplane for free. The opportunity to meet someone in person I've always admired. Getting set of Japanese twins to have sex with me.

So please explain how the opportunity to state whether I have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on an abusive government list is a "great opportunity". Because I just to don't see it. I don't have to prove my political chops to anyone, and making an anonymous post to a techie web site about how I think the government should handle a particular terrorist does not appear to be a "great opportunity" to me in any conceivable way. For some reason you think it is, so please explain why.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Reziac]

"(even driving is a privilege, not a right -- that's why you need a license)"

NO. The driver's license was originally certification that you were competent to operate a motor vehicle. It did NOT confer any right or privilege wrt your ability to or mode of travel.

I don't deny that in recent decades it's become twisted into a "license to do something that is otherwise illegal", rather than a certificate of competence. But I'm old enough to remember its original function.

That original function is why there are various classes of driver's lic. -- 18 wheeler, bus, passenger vehicle, motorcycle -- because those are different skill sets.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

I agree, but you might want to reply to the guy who said that, rather than the guy who just quoted it.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Reziac]

Mighta been unclear on who said what... apparently there is now a quoteback system in place that is invisible in textmode (low-bandwidth, no JS, no CSS).

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

Yeah, there's a "Quote Parent" button which automatically inserts the parents with quote tags around it. Quote and blockquote show up on the full site as an indented section with a gray bar running down the left side. If there's no visual indicator for them in text mode then that's a real problem!

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[mi]

Ah, guilt by association, I love it.

Well, there is nothing particularly "lovely" about it — it just can't be discounted. There is a saying in Russian: "Tell me, who your friends are, and I'll say, who you are."

Therefore all members of those two parties should be held under the deepest suspicion of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and torture.

Was that part of any of the party's strategy or tactics, or did they just condone somebody else doing it? The depth of your suspicion ought to depend on the answer, but basically, yes, you are right. If you are dealing with a member of a group, that does something (as a group) — good or bad — it is reasonable to think, that the individual member is doing it or would do it too.

So please explain how the opportunity to state whether I have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on an abusive [emphasis mine -mi] government list is a "great opportunity".

Whenever you — in response to an assertion, that you hold certain opinion on a matter — deny expressing an opinion, there is almost always a great opportunity to express one way or another for clarity. Skipping that opportunity is usually a sign of either a desire to muddle up the discussion or not wanting to confirm, that the initial assertion was, in fact, accurate. Your hinting at being afraid of some sort of persecution on yourself is quite laughable too.

You are yet to demonstrate, BTW, that the list is, in fact abusive (although your current .sig certainly is). But given your now-established tendency to obfuscate an argument, I don't really care... So long...

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

Whenever you â" in response to an assertion, that you hold certain opinion on a matter â" deny expressing an opinion, there is almost always a great opportunity to express one way or another for clarity. Skipping that opportunity is usually a sign of either a desire to muddle up the discussion or not wanting to confirm, that the initial assertion was, in fact, accurate. Your hinting at being afraid of some sort of persecution on yourself is quite laughable too.

The matter is simply not relevant to the discussion, and I'm withholding my opinion on it to prove that point. That you continue to insist that this is some kind of "great opportunity" to state it just goes to show that you're a total nutbar. Making a big deal about somebody's failure to express a "politically correct" opinion when discussing something tangential to that opinion is almost always the prelude to an ad hominem attack meant to distract from the original discussion.

As for my sig, I'm just happy to see that it's doing its job.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Reziac]

Sometimes it's fairly evident who says what, but a lot of the time I'm either guessing or have to backtrack the thread. And sometimes it's confused well back there and there's no untangling it.

They've been messing with the system again lately.. now I can't get at Yesterday's News anymore. :( I doubt I'm the only one here who accesses the site essentially in textmode, but as with everywhere, most people don't complain, they just go away.

Which kinda goes back to the nominal topic -- most people don't complain about surveillance either; they just hunch their shoulders and hope no one is looking their way.

I *do* complain, on both counts. :)

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

Well please keep up your complaining, on both counts.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Reziac]

Slashdot, designed to teach us how to complain diplomatically.

(And the bridge is right over there. Really! ;)

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[sumdumass]

It's actually quite clear and I'm wondering why your not answering it.

It is that you are a hypocrite in your stand where someone accused but not yet convicted like Ayers shouldn't be on the list where someone of the same stature like Bin Laden should be? I mean the reason he asked the question was to see if you had some insightful understanding in why one should be on the list while another should be off the list or if you don't think the list should exist at all. Instead, you seem to be evading the entire question as if you know the answer somehow harms your position or something.

The great opportunity would be to explain why either way because I was with you until he pulled the Bin laden monkey out of the bag in which I think you were baffled and evasive. Now I'm not sure if I was wowed by your use of pretty words or if you actually had a point I could agree with. It's currently leaning to were your point isn't going to stand up when the light gets shined on it. So please elaborate on it for us all.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

The reason I'm evading the question is because he was abusive with it. You'll note that he did not, in fact, ask a question at all. He started off by saying this:

If you don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list (he was not convicted either, was he?) then you should not have a problem with anyone else being there.

At which point I told him not to make assumptions about my position. (I really hate it when people do this, because my positions are not the simplistic right/left of American politics, but people insist on pigeonholing me into them.) I did this without stating my actual position, because I did not feel it was relevant. He then took this as some kind of affront, and the whole thing spiraled down the drain.

You want to know my position? Ask the question. The other guy never did, which is why I never answered it. He thought that I should spontaneously state my position on the matter despite its irrelevance to the discussion, and that a failure to do so was indicative of... I really don't know what. But I do know that if you want me to answer a question, it helps a lot to actually ask it.

You sort of asked it. I mean, you did so it a really leading way that makes you look like an asshole, but you asked it. So here's my answer: the list is stupid and should not exist. Therefore nobody, including Osama bin Laden, should be on it. Putting Osama bin Laden on such a list is pointless anyway, because he's already on a much more significant and sensible list, namely a list of people who will be instantly arrested and put on trial the moment they reach US territory.

As I said, either arrest them or let them be. Bin Laden is in the former category. Ayers was in the former category, then prosecutors screwed up his case and now he's in the latter category.

Simple, no?

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[sumdumass]

The way I read the statement he made was more along the lines of asking you to make a statements about it. However, after reading your response I can see where your going with it. I don't however think it is a right and left position in this particular case. One was released from criminal proceedings and the other has never stood on them.

As for looking like an asshole, well, that's just me. It happens and I don't quite concern myself over it. I do however accept your position on the list in which it not being valid for existence would trump the insistence on putting anyone on it. I think that is consistent with your previous points and clears a lot up (for me at least). Thank you for taking that time.

As for arrest them or let them be, well, with Ayers, I'm not really sure I can personally let him be. I'm not the government though and as a citizen I have an inherent concern over actions of other citizens that may be terrorist or dangerous in nature (even if it served a just goal). I'm not for prosecuting him wrongly or imposing penalties without due process but I am for questioning his actions, motivations, associates and so on. There seems to be enough uncontested evidence surrounding his actions that the concern isn't misplaced. It sort of reminds me of a detective story I read a while ago which may or may not be true.

Anyways the plot goes along the lines of some guy raped a woman and the arresting officer was somehow related to her. This led to a beating and what was claimed to of been a forced confession which got him acquitted of all charges when everything the cop was involved with was thrown out of court. A surveillance tape from a nearby store had the entire incident on film except that the shop owner was afraid of gang retribution and never came forward with it until after he was set free. The guy couldn't be charged twice for the same crime and went free. He went back to the woman he raped and taunted her, acting like he was going to rape her again. She then pulled a gun out and committed suicide. Her father who knew what was happening after reading a page in her diary about not being able to live through something like that again hunted him down later and shot him. He ended up spending the rest of his life in prison because of it.

Anyways, the guy who got off for rape was still a threat even if he didn't rape again. He caused severe emotional trauma and blah blah blah. The point is that he was a free guilty man and should have been watched. Maybe not by the police, maybe he should have had a restraining order, maybe there should have been posters with his picture on it, maybe a lot of things could have been different. It probably was a fictional story but it doesn't negate that people should be aware of the people around them or influencing others around them. Ayers probably wouldn't even be on anyone's radar right now if it wasn't for associations to Obama which I think are being over blown. But it isn't like he shouldn't be watched when he has the potential to influence the policy of the next possible president.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

Hey, it's a free country, you can do whatever you like to people you think deserve it, so long as it's legal. I never said that people should treat Ayers like any average Joe just because prosecutors screwed up his case. But the law is obligated to treat him just like every average Joe. And anyone who insists otherwise cares more about their personal beliefs than the rule of law.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[sumdumass]

I think we are in complete agreement then.

Re:abuse vs. misuse

[Free the Cowards]

Hooray!

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]

Well their real classification system is even above above top secret so.

Re:Eyeroll

[MadnessASAP]

*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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and if you had Teal Omega 1 clearance, you'd know just how many classifications we really have.

Re:Eyeroll

[AmericanPegasus]

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

Re:Eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

When'd you get out? Fellow HUMINTer here.

Re:Eyeroll

[rhsanborn]

Similarly absurd, I must share this story. I work for a company that provides services for a couple hospitals. These hospitals sent a request to the group running the system that handled laboratory reports. They requested that they add a new level of importance. High importance labs are sent STAT. But since every doctor sent his orders as STAT to get them faster, it turned out that everything was fifo. So, they requested that a new level be created, they wanted it to be SUPER STAT. Rather than work on changing the specifications for STAT, or in this case TOP SECRET, they just create a new level with a silly modifier like SUPER.

Re:Eyeroll

[chord.wav]

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Obligatory Spinal Tap quote:

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.

Re:Eyeroll

[Kagura]

Are you serious? A key point of the classification system is that the system itself is not classified.

As for "Ultra", perhaps you are referring to the British code name for all documents and intelligence related to the broken Enigma machines:

There are also compartments, or "code words", which pertain to specific projects, and are used to more easily manage which individuals require certain information. Code words are not levels of classification themselves, but a person working on a project may have the code word for that project added to his file, and then will be given access to the relevant documents. Code words may also label the sources of various documents; for example, there are code words used to indicate that a document may break the cover of intelligence operatives if its content becomes known. The WWII code word ULTRA identified information found by decrypting German ciphers, such as the Enigma machine, and which â" regardless of its own significance â" might inform the Germans that Enigma was broken if they became aware that it was known.

It is a form of the modern "compartmentalization". The information is still classified Top Secret, but only the members of certain intelligence communities may have access to that information. Look around on the comments, there are plenty of good posts on this already. There is no "above top secret" or similar classification.

Re:Eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that certain compartments are themselves classified, but they still follow the same rules and logic as any standard SCI control system. The big 2 that everyone gets with a "de facto" SCI clearance are SI and TK, which are both unclassified control systems. Most other compartments have unclassified tri/digraphs where the word itself is classified.

You can also have data that is classified with multiple compartments and special access requirements that require joint handling within several control systems. These type of documents might have a header with 15 words on the top, but it's still a TS/SCI document. The bottom line is if there was really any data at such a level that it wouldn't fall within the US classification format, it wouldn't be marked as anything.

Re:Eyeroll

[SmackedFly]

Top Secret has quite specific meanings in American intelligence, above would just mean it goes beyond that. Even Top Secret has limits... Whether that is what's meant here I don't know though.

Re:Eyeroll

[Llywelyn]

That's what compartmentalization is for.

TS isn't about processing order, it is about access. They already have TS compartments that require polygraphs, lifestyle checks, etc. If they wanted an additional level of security, they'd just add a new compartment rather than try and create something "above" TS.

Re:Eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

*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.

It would also be foolish to assume that they would not simply add your "ultra" moniker to a standard TS/SCI classification. Sorry, but it's difficult enough just managing SCI levels, let alone trying to come up with another level, no matter how exclusive the membership.

They don't call it compartmentalized for nothing. You don't actually think even the POTUS is briefed on EVERYTHING, do you?

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]

When'd you get out? Fellow HUMINTer here.

2003, but my first stint was back in the good ol' days of the cold war, '87-'93, when we were still called "Interrogator/Linguist".

Re:Eyeroll

[eclectic4]

"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."

Well, if that's what it says in Wikipedia then it must be true. There are no government documents that certain people with "Top Secret" clearance can't view. Period. There is nothing "above" Top Secret, and therefore nothing exists there. And besides, the government wouldn't just make stuff up or try to imply something that wasn't true, even for security purposes! They are completely transparent. Nor would they come up with a silly name that implies an impossibility, and then had certain entities operate in these "impossibilities". It's just impossible, because it says in Wikipedia that... just... pffft, come on people! Just take off the tinfoil hats and move along.

Crazy nutjobs.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Heh. Look out, because I get the feeling that DOUBLE SECRET STAT is coming...

Re:Eyeroll

[Kagura]

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

Re:Eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Eyeroll

[taucross]

Wow, I can tell you've been in the army.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

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.

Your point would be valid if there weren't twenty-odd references attached to the article, plus several THOUSAND Google hits on the subject, many of them official government documents detailing how the system works. I point to the Wikipedia article because 1) it's fairly accurate in this case, and 2) it's written in simple terms even a UFO nutjob could probably understand.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Wow, I can tell you've been in the army.

What gave it away? The part where I said "when I was in the Army"?

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

[Dun Malg]

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".

Whicheverway you look at it, there is no classification level of "ABOVE TOP SECRET", nor a classification level higher than "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.

Wait, you c laim it's so secret there's no information available on it, yet at the same time you claim to know it exists? Are you one of those people who says "lack of evidence is a sure sign the conspiracy is working"?

You are likely confusing clearance level (applies to people) with classification (applies to information). Let me try this again: there are only 3 levels of classified information. Now, access to the various individual blobs and agglomerations of information that reside on these three tiers is determined by need to know, resulting in something called compartmentalization. This access is granted on an individual basis, and generally requires a certain flavor of security clearance. The specifics of the degree of background check, citizenship requirements, etc. vary from one SCI to another, which could very easily add up to 8-12 levels. For example, working in direct proximity to the POTUS requires a clearance of YANKEE WHITE. The names and requirements of many of these security clearance levels are, in fact, classified.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Well their real classification system is even above above top secret so.

And what happens when someone leaves a folder labeled with the "above top secret" classification of "DOUBLE HUSH HUSH - TIGHTY WHITEY SKIDMARK" on some low level clerk's desk? You get a clerk who opens up a folder that looks like a joke because he knows of no such classification, and suddenly you have a GS-5 paper pusher looking at your alien autopsy photos. There's a reason why they make the classification scheme known. It's part of how they keep the secret stuff secret. A clerk with only a SECRET clearance who sees a folder labeled "TOP SECRET-SCI/TWS" is going to immediately get on the phone and get someone to take that potentially career-ending item off his desk, and FAST.

Re:Eyeroll

[dbIII]

Before you continue to go off at this guy, wasn't ultra a WWII classification (I don't know about the current conspiracy theory stuff and I doubt it's relevant) and isn't that why the words "certain precedent" are used? I think you are arguing about different things here.

Re:Eyeroll

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't much care - sorry

Re:Eyeroll

[Ksevio]

ULTRA Secret was only a ranking in the British classification system, the US never had anything above Top Secret.

Re:Eyeroll

[VShael]

Sorry, but I've got to ask, because I always wondered but never knew someone with a Top Secret clearance.

Why do they have things like Top Secret Poly (and other qualifiers) which use polygraphs, when the polygraph is a bullshit technology?

Re:Eyeroll

[pla]

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".

You mean like the CIA's now-well-exposed and fairly well documented MK-Ultra program, wherein they dosed unaware and nonconsenting American citizens with LSD (and other less well-known drugs)?


Nope, they'd certainly never use words like that...

...Again.


The only real question involves what they call it now; not whether or not they still do crap like that.

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:Eyeroll

[PhilJC]

So let me get this straight.. is there or isn't there something higher than Top Secret?

..just kidding but after reading all your posts and not having any mod points to spend I have to resort to a post to show my appreciation of your patience explaining it again and again and again..

Though the more I actually think about it the more obvious it appears that you must, in fact, work for some ULTRA SUPER SECRET government department determined to make sure the rest of the world doesn't believe you exist.. My reasoning: that any normal person would have just started shouting at all the ultra conspiracy nutjobs (yes UCNJ's are a higher form CNJ) - your patience suggests professional training. Were you in the army?

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

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". You mean like the CIA's now-well-exposed and fairly well documented MK-Ultra program, wherein they dosed unaware and nonconsenting American citizens with LSD (and other less well-known drugs)? Nope, they'd certainly never use words like that... ...Again. The only real question involves what they call it now; not whether or not they still do crap like that.

Heh. Well yeah, MKULTRA is where all the nutjobs get the idea that ULTRA is a classification level, because of the meaning of the word. It was, in fact, just a program name. They did name secret projects like that back in the day, but it was soon realized that doing so only draws attention to them. The current protocol is to use meaningless code words. ULTRA would be considered too "loaded" to attach to anything secret.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Sorry, but I've got to ask, because I always wondered but never knew someone with a Top Secret clearance.

Why do they have things like Top Secret Poly (and other qualifiers) which use polygraphs, when the polygraph is a bullshit technology?

I've wondered the same thing myself. Specifically, I wonder why the intel community has such a hard on for polygrapy, when it's just security theater. Actually, I think I just answered my own question. So much of what's classified is completely worthless and doesn't need to be. People get into the whole "spy world" thing and just go nuts with it. Polygraphy just fits in with the secret agent fantasy.

Re:Eyeroll

[VShael]

Should have suspected that. They're only human after all, and just as prone to accepting pseudoscience and bullshit as the rest of gen.pop.

Thanks though!

Re:Eyeroll

[mattwarden]

> 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.

So, what you're saying is: NOT EVEN YOU know about the UFOs and YOU HAD TOP SECRET CLEARANCE!!! Take that, skeptics.

Re:Eyeroll

[Reziac]

What? Do you mean there's really no such classified level as "Burn Before Reading" ??! ;)

Re:Eyeroll

[Reziac]

I see the problem. Everyone here is only familiar with peer to peer networking and therefore only with P2P security. No one does Netware anymore, so they're not aware of the top-down, compartmentalized security model. At best they can only visualize the *NIX model, which is more permissive about sideways access than Netware is.

There, that should explain it well enough. ;)

Re:Eyeroll

[Reziac]

I think I'd file it under "layered scare tactics" -- people will often give stuff away when they *think* YOU BELIEVE you can hear them thinking, that they'd never let on to if they knew damn well that you ALSO know it's bullshit.

So... pretend to believe in it, and watch the reactions of people who know better but think *they* are leading YOU down the garden path.

Well, I don't know if that's how it's used, but that's how *I* would use it.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

"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." Well, if that's what it says in Wikipedia then it must be true.

The presence or possible presence of inaccurate information in Wikipedia does not automagically make everything in Wikipedia false. I have read the Wikipedia entry, and found it factually correct. This is part of my point. The classification system is so simple and transparent that even Wikipedia has it right.

There are no government documents that certain people with "Top Secret" clearance can't view. Period.

Hey nutjob, read the Wikipedia entry and see if you can grok the difference between classification and clearance, and also maybe grasp the concept of compartmentalization.

There is nothing "above" Top Secret, and therefore nothing exists there.

This is correct, nutjob. TOP SECRET is the highest tier of classification. Varying degrees of specific clearance are required for various programs and such within the tier, so having only a TOP SECRET clearance in general gives you access to very little.

And besides, the government wouldn't just make stuff up or try to imply something that wasn't true, even for security purposes! They are completely transparent.

Transparency of the classification system is important in order to maintain security. If documents are labeled with a classification tier that's "so high it's secret", how would someone without clearance know not to look at it and call security if it's accidentally left on their desk? Seriously, quit being a nutjob and read the rest of the posts here. Several of us have explained this already.

Nor would they come up with a silly name that implies an impossibility, and then had certain entities operate in these "impossibilities". It's just impossible, because it says in Wikipedia that... just... pffft, come on people! Just take off the tinfoil hats and move along.

Look, it's been explained in this discussion six ways from sunday how the system works and why. Even Wikipedia has the straight dope on it--- though if you like, you can wade through the tedious references or do a google search and read it straight from the government documents that outline it. But no, you don't care about any of that. If it's not some nutjob UFO "researcher" saying it, you think it's a conspiracy. Good work! You are officially a classic UFO nutjob!

Crazy nutjobs.

Yes, you are!

Re:Eyeroll

[Vitriol Angst]

OK, all you people spouting off about secret clearances, are of course either dis-info agents or are not aware of the Super Secret categories of Top Secret. You would be dead by now if you posted these classifications -- what would happen, or why I know this is above my pay grade.

ULTRA, is of course NOT used, because the person who blabbed that is now dead. And if you use it, other agents are trained to laugh at you. Bush himself has created new classifications for Homeland Security, but "Super-Duper Secret" was turned down by the actual, secret shadow government.

Now, mod me down so that this information does not make the attention of the PTB.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

Though the more I actually think about it the more obvious it appears that you must, in fact, work for some ULTRA SUPER SECRET government department determined to make sure the rest of the world doesn't believe you exist.. My reasoning: that any normal person would have just started shouting at all the ultra conspiracy nutjobs (yes UCNJ's are a higher form CNJ) - your patience suggests professional training. Were you in the army?

Heh. Yeah, I was in the Army for a good many years. In fact, I was trained as a Human Intelligence Collector, so that probably explains my patience dealing with dense folks who need things explained five times. Have you ever tried to get a Pashtun to tell you (through an interpreter!) where his neighbor has buried a truckload of volatile old soviet artillery shells? I don't recommend it. No, I sure wish I was part of something interesting. The sad fact is, there was probably no one more in the dark than me. I was just a tool, pressed into service for a job I wasn't well trained for simply because manpower was short. I wish I could say I was good at my job, but really, I didn't see enough Method to the Madness to know what would constitute "a good job". I did my time humping a ruck up and down the ridges and gullies, ducking the occasional bullet, then came home and swore to enjoy my life of quiet desperation.

Conspiracy theorists tend to suck me into explaining how the government works, because they always seem to think there's some exceptional degree of competence in the [military | covert ops | government intelligence community] that magically keeps the conspiracy machine well-oiled and running, despite evidence that "mundane" government agencies like FEMA can't find their ass with both hands and a funnel. Really, the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT is like FEMA after Katrina. In some ways that's a scarier thought than all the mind-control and UFO fantasies. Unfortunately, it's also true.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

I see the problem. Everyone here is only familiar with peer to peer networking and therefore only with P2P security. No one does Netware anymore, so they're not aware of the top-down, compartmentalized security model. At best they can only visualize the *NIX model, which is more permissive about sideways access than Netware is.

There, that should explain it well enough. ;)

Heh. That's a GREAT analogy. I'm going to have to remember that one.

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

What? Do you mean there's really no such classified level as "Burn Before Reading" ??! ;)

Ja, dunno 'bout that, but I certainly think there oughtta be a classification level of "SUICIDE BEFORE READING" for certain reports to specific upper-level leaders...

Re:Eyeroll

[Reziac]

That definitely sounds like the maximum in secrecy! DHS should look into it. ;D

Re:Eyeroll

[Dun Malg]

I think I'd file it under "layered scare tactics" -- people will often give stuff away when they *think* YOU BELIEVE you can hear them thinking, that they'd never let on to if they knew damn well that you ALSO know it's bullshit.

So... pretend to believe in it, and watch the reactions of people who know better but think *they* are leading YOU down the garden path.

Well, I don't know if that's how it's used, but that's how *I* would use it.

Yeah, you're probably on to something there. And I suppose good security theater would actually help. But of course we know that a lot of them believe in polygraphy, because if they didn't, and knew it was all crap, then no one would "get in trouble" for "failing" a polygraph. Unfortunately, people get refused initial clearances or have their clearances revoked because of what some deluded jackass thinks he sees in a pattern of squiggles on paper.

Re:Eyeroll

[Reziac]

Yep... fact is, we'd probably all be better off if all the security theatre performances got bad reviews and had short runs .. because there will always be SOME people who believe in it and act accordingly -- even people you'd think would be smart enough to know better.

Re:Eyeroll

[r00t]

of course, a compartment is above top secret

The denial is totally silly. Look, you have:

* more restricted set of people
* more restrictions on document handling
* more frequent review of people
* different document markings

The only thing not "above" about SCI and SAP
is the silly denial.

Article Summary is Paranoid Tripe

[jafiwam]

Come on mods, at least edit out the obvious time-cube crap from the summary before posting these.

Jesus fucking christ, Fark is more accurate than this crap.

If I wanted paranoid shit, I would go to church.

Deja Vu

[Maexxus]

So does this system look into the past aswell? Reminds me alot of Deja Vu.

The obvious reality...

[tjstork]

Is that the government has just awarded a top secret no-bid contract to Google Earth so that they are the only ones pay 72 billion dollars for the state of the art in web based intelligence that the rest of us just use for free.

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:The obvious reality...

[TheRaven64]

Only if they launch from the USA. If they launch from elsewhere then they have to abide by that country's laws. The EU, Russia, and China all have space programs capable of launching satellites.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the imagery from their satellite network was sold to the highest bidder by whoever ended up in control of them. I visited a MoD installation a few years and saw a satellite photo they'd bought of the site hung up in the reception room. Apparently, due to the sensitive nature of the site, it was illegal to take aerial photography of it, but due to various treaties the satellite imagery was legal.

JUDAS PRIEST "The Electric Eye"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Up here in space, I'm looking down on you... My lasers trace, everything YOU do! You think you've private lives (think NOTHING of the kind) - there is NO TRUE ESCAPE (I'm watching, all the time)... I'm made of metal, my circuits gleam! I am perpetual, I keep the country clean! I'm elected, electric spy. I'm protected, the electric eye... Always in focus, can't kill my stare - I zoom into you (but, you don't know I'm there)... I take a pride in probing all your secret moves, my tearless retina takes pictures that can prove, I'm made of metal, my circuits gleam... I am perpetual, I keep the country clean. Electric eye, in the sky Feel my stare, always there... Theres nothing you can do about it (Develop and expose) - I feed upon your every thought, And so my power grows! I'm made of metal, my circuits gleam... I am perpetual I keep the country clean. I'm elected, electric spy. I'm protected, electric eye... Protected, Detective, Electric Eye..." - JUDAS PRIEST

USA, Lost its way!

[278MorkandMindy]

This is yet another reason that USA appears to have lost its way.
FTFA "But as the Journal reported, Congress' "partial funding" for the program in "a little-debated $634 billion spending measure," "

Now assume for a second that this funding figure is correct, (the article reads a little like one of those conspiracy theory types are writing it) WTF is congress thinking?

The country is in meltdown that will NOT be stopped, the healthcare system is screwed (I am waiting for our system in Australia to fall that far) and congress thinks it is ok to spend that sort of money on spying on people?

I cheered when the first bailout bill failed. I hoped that it represented an outbreak of common sense. I hoped that the bailout would save the little guy, but NOT the banks.

This is the result of needing to have increasing profit, needing to have ways to make money that have ZERO actual use to the economy/population (they don't create anything, they don't help anyone, they just exist for people to gamble to make money)

Take a step back, large debt is bad. Always needing growth will eventually bite back.

To be on topic, this kind of spending seems to be indicative that NO lessons have been learned OR that the common man is as truly helpless as the "fat cats" seem to think

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[Anonymous Coward]

The country is in meltdown that will NOT be stopped, the healthcare system is screwed (I am waiting for our system in Australia to fall that far) and congress thinks it is ok to spend that sort of money on spying on people?

They'll be given little choice. After years of fighting about the Navy sonar shit "experiment" on grounds of damage to endangered species, the fucking white house wants to intrude on the court proceedings with their usual handwaving about, "This is a military need and the president declares it to be a matter of national security subject only to his presidential power to conduct the war on terrorism."

Fuck the "unitary president" theorists in their assholes with a ball of barbed wire.

Can't believe the captcha -- military

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[DerekLyons]

I cheered when the first bailout bill failed. I hoped that it represented an outbreak of common sense. I hoped that the bailout would save the little guy, but NOT the banks.

Hint: If the banks fail, the little guy can't cash his paycheck. He won't even get a paycheck if there are no banks to write the check against. (Assuming he still has a job that is.)

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[278MorkandMindy]

I thought it was clear that I meant that the "little guy" who has investments and a transaction account would have his piece of the bailout and the bank would then dissolve if it could no longer support itself.
SOME banks must survive, thus making a better marketplace, as the ones that DO survive must have been more conservative.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[KozmoKramer]

"This is yet another reason that USA appears to have lost its way."
As an American Citizen I can tell you from first hand experience that the USA lost its way a long time ago. The USA lost its way after World War II when the Industrial Military Complex was created. The common man has not had a real say so in the government in over 60 years. I see little hope that this is going to change ever. The USA is lost, and it is a lost cause. Get used to the idea of Americans migrating to your country.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[DerekLyons]

I thought it was clear that I meant that the "little guy" who has investments and a transaction account would have his piece of the bailout and the bank would then dissolve if it could no longer support itself.

What part of "if the banks fail the little guy is fucked" is so hard to understand? You can't bail out the 'little guy' without bailing out the banks. By just bailing out (in some magical and unspecified way) the little guy, you actually make things worse.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[noidentity]

You write as if the US is in this mess due to external causes. If that were the case, it would make sense to expect a rational response. But since it's in this mess due to its own incompetence, it's only going to do things to make it worse even if it's attempting to make things better; if it could have gotten itself out of this mess earlier, it would have.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[278MorkandMindy]

Erm, give the little guy his 20k and piss the bank off??
So the little guy can't borrow money... so what?

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Australian dude, your currency has lost almost 30% against the US dollar in the last 3 months! That means we win.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means our currency has corrected itself already. Our banks are more controlled and have already written off what they fucked up. Yours is still falling, and I expect it to keep falling because stupid shit like the bailout just devalues your currency more.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[Digital End]

we spend 50% of the worlds military budget and whine about a dwindling military.

How do you read that? How do you justify it in our current state? And no one could get elected on the idea of disbanding 3/4 of our military (we'd still be out ahead of the rest)

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[TheRaven64]

Do you understand how banks work? They borrow money from individuals and lend it to others. If you 'give the little guy his 20K' then where does this come from? The bank doesn't have to have that much in liquid assets, it just has to have enough debts owed to it to be able to cover the cost. If enough people try to withdraw their money at once then any bank will collapse - the problem is not insolvency, it is lack of liquidity. The government could just print another $20K for each person who wants to close their bank account, but this would cause massive inflation, which doesn't help anyone.

Re:USA, Lost its way!

[DerekLyons]

Not only can the little guy not borrow money - he can't cash his paycheck. The company he works for can't even write the paychecks for that matter. Nor can the company pay it's bills, or receive payment from their creditors...
 
Not being able to borrow money is going to be far down the little guy's list of problems. Not being able to pay for food, or utilities, or rent/mortgage will occupy his time.

Great...

[actionbastard]

Another reason to never go outside. Ever.

Re:Great...

[jonaskoelker]

Another reason to never go outside. Ever.

As if Day Star Death Rays wasn't enough...

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

This is poorly-written alarmist nonsense. If you think this is "terrifying," you have serious problems.

I enjoy my privacy and all, but when I read reactions like this I just have to shake my head and laugh.

Limited utility

[Jzanu]

Considering the cost of these satellites and the relatively small amount of attitude control fuel, I can not see much use here. Drone aircraft are cheaper, and are effectively invisible at high altitudes. Especially since the shuttle is being retired, and the U.S. has no other satellite maintenance platforms.

Not enough to do?

[actionbastard]

"NAO will coordinate how domestic law enforcement and "disaster relief" agencies such as FEMA use satellite imagery intelligence (IMINT) generated by U.S. spy satellites."

First off, lets set the record straight. FEMA is not a '"disaster relief"' agency. It is a disaster. Period. I cannot believe these people have nothing better to task these satellites with than watching ordinary citizens, scurrying about on the ground, going about their daily business. How about finding UBL? Wasn't that a 'pry-or-a-ty' of that inbred hick in the 'Oval Office'? Instead of eyeballing private citizens from space, why don't they find that asshole and put a Hellfire missile up his ass? American citizens may chide the the UK all they want for their nationwide deployment of CCTV cameras, but this is so wrong that it is embarrassing on a national level.

Re:Not enough to do?

[Free the Cowards]

Satellites are pretty constrained in their orbits. They're going to pass over the US at certain times no matter what. While they're passing over the US, they probably can't help with the search for Mr. bin Laden. As such, how do you think that these resources could instead go towards finding him?

Re:Not enough to do?

[Dun Malg]

How about finding UBL?...why don't they find that asshole and put a Hellfire missile up his ass?

We know where he is. He's in Pakistan, where we can't get near him. Pakistan is ruled by a creepy mix of thieves and Islamists that just barely manage to hold power. Letting the US Army into the "backwoods" to hunt down a friend of the jihadi locals would flip out enough people to essentially start a civil war, so the odds of us getting bin Laden are approximately nil.

Pft

[inKubus]

The stupid stuff that happened in the 60's and 70's != 9/11 pal. TOTALLY different in every way. To combine the two is like saying that McCain's torture has something to do with his erratic behavior, or the fact that he's a child molester. Ok, bad example.

The FOUNDERS of this country were terrorists in the eyes of King George. But what they did was fight to create a better situation for themselves. You saw that again in the 60's and 70's with civil rights and the youth movement. Yes, the Weather Underground were a bunch of idiots but it's important to note that the changes some of their peers helped bring about have made this country a massively better place for everyone. And anyway, the real fear is religious fanatics with a nuclear weapon, not some dumb kids with pipe bombs.

And you sir are a fool to think that it has anything to do with "WAR". It's just that war epitomizes the separation of class. In the 70's there were drastic (though not as drastic as today) gaps between rich and poor. A horrible economy, an unending war, caused by foolish leadership, taken advantage of by the rich while the poor starve and are jobless, well, what's worse than that?

What this is doing is placing still more power, surveilence power (control), into the hands of a few people in the government. The same people who have pretty much given the government to corporations they formerly ran, and now are giving 700B to the same people. It's in the largest worldwide corporations' interest to A. have control of a government B. Erase worldwide borders caused by multiple currencies/legal systems/etc. "War" rarely physically involves the rich, unless it's a passtime they get off on. It's about money. Now what we have are the makings for a massive shift in government, from multiple countries to one world government. It is 100% enevitable. The people who control the wealth of the world talk to one another, you know. And it sure would be simpler for them if they didn't have to mess with different legal systems..

WWII was between capitalism (The allies), corporatism or fascism (the axis), and communism (the Soviets/China). We the U.S. were actually on the fence and were supporting both the forces of corporatism and capitalism. See also The New Deal. The problem is that the American constitution has separated public and private as much as it does church and state. In the end, money won. The plans showed that if we joined with England, Germany could be beaten. Frankly, there were just more English decended families in power in congress at the time. Obviously in Germany corporatism was over-stateist and led by a madman, which led to extremes that made the choice a no-brainer. The important thing to note is that it was not the economic policy of Hitler but rather other more personal reasons that caused us to ally with the Allies. Likewise, Japan bombed us because they were invading China and the Phillipines, whom we had relations with/had a territory. So, it was a no-brainer.

But NOW, we have an entirely different power structure. There are many "free market" scholars who have long admired the structure of corporatism. So, you see some of these people's last gasp in the political arena as trying to make this leap. And so, just as Bush Cheney has broken the barriers of Church and State, they have also broken the barriers of public and private. And in many ways they have flat out BROKEN the LAW (and the constitution). They declared early that the president decides the law, so they made up their own book. And with Globalism, what will be the enevitable structure of this one world government? Not capitalism, that's for growth. Not communism, that's for stagnation. No, a perfectly controlled business environment, neo-corporatism, with some facets of democracy.

So now the competing philosophies in the high end of world leadership are differing only by what to do with US, the worker bees. I think corporatism could wo

Re:Pft

[BigBlueOx]

The choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. Always has been.

FailzHors?1!

[Anonymous Coward]

Usenet is roughly to have to dEcide kill myself like NIGGER community world-spanning lea8ving the play happiness Another that they can hold

New World Order

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite obvious Bush and his cronies are moving their final piece into place to take over and enslave all mankind for their reptilian overlords. October 14th you will see.

They can see our every move..

[Anonymous Coward]

but can they see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

Re:They can see our every move..

[Mesa MIke]

C'mon, mods!

That was funny.

Katrina

[Anonymous Coward]

For all of you who wanted more federal involvement, federal control of the national guard, etc.

The chickens have come home to roost.

RE: Homeland Security's Spying Goes Live

[Anonymous Coward]

A futile Soviet-era ploy by DHS to stay the arrest and incarcination (with death penalty served) of all DHS and associative agencies staff and political appointees pending the next election.

No where to run -- no where to hid, DHS.

Still, they, DHS and associative agencies staff and political appointees could choose the, Final Solution, and kill themselves in their own homes or on the streets -- in back allies of DC's south side, such as they lurk, wanting, to quench their thurst for cocaine and such other things.

slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

I remember when distrusting government spending our money on spying on us, violating our rights, was a favorite "value" for Conservatives, not just some kind of sign of weakness by "liberals".

Liberals always said that Conservatives were just fascist lemmings. Now that Conservatives have created this huge infrastructure for spying on us and violating our rights, rather than protecting them, it's obvious that liberals were right.

Re:slashkos

[Digital End]

Well that's why they attacked the ideas of liberals before doing it... now thinking like that is 'crazy hippy crap, the guv't isn't spying on you, there are terrorists!'... Attack the idea of opposition before it opposes you

Re:slashkos

[Xonstantine]

Well, it should make you happy then that all that fascist infrastructure the Republicans built will soon be in the hands of Democrats.

Re:slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

Of course that doesn't make me happy. Only a Republican would be happy that our country's infrastructure has been converted into fascism. By Republicans, and I mean Republicans like you who voted for it for over a decade.

Democrats have some chance of maybe tearing some of it down. Republicans do not. Thanks for nothing.

Re:slashkos

[Xonstantine]

Well, since the election looks like it's going your way, we'll see if Democrats follow through. I'm betting though that once they get power they are going to like the trappings of power ala Napolean the pig in Animal Farm. Their justification of course, will be that they are oppressing us in the name of the little people instead of national security.

Re:slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, just like when Clinton was in charge, and oppressed us all into the ground.

Look, just because you Republicans have no lower limits when it comes to oppressing us, and no limits of any kind on what lies you invoke to smokescreen your oppression, that doesn't mean that anyone else does.

You people have destroyed the country, and your own credibility most of all. If you're predicting it, it's as sure to come through as a cakewalk and WMDs in Iraq.

Re:slashkos

[Xonstantine]

Hey, this is something I'd prefer to be wrong about. But given the giddy anticipation with which Democrats have been vandalizing Republican campaign offices and homes with McCain/Palin signs, executing voting fraud in at least 10 states via their get out the vote wing Acorn, and talking about re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine, I think very soon we are going to see what a Democratic run thugocracy looks like.

Re:slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

You'll be happy to know that ACORN's registration procedures are extremely rigorous and legal, despite the Republican government's attempt to frame it with lies to interfere with ACORN's work helping people vote who Republicans would rather not.

Oh, you're sure to be pleased to know that McCain has also strongly endorsed ACORN by campaigning with it.

That should reassure you. Unless, of course, you're just another Republican more addicted to Rush Limbo's lies (and insHannity's, and the rest who get the Republican Party faxes) than to the truth about what makes America great. In which case you need to admit that Republicans are the vote fraudsters, as is well known from your party's stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere. And the Gonzales US Attorney purges of any Federal prosecutor who didn't selectively prosecute Democrats to help Republicans win elections. The list is 8 years long.

But why should you care? You Republicans stole the election, then stole everything else in the country (tangible and otherwise), leaving us in ruin. You're the Party of Nixon: "You're Guilty Only If You Get Caught", and "When the President Does It, It's Not Illegal". America's better than that, so we're dumping you for democracy instead. Sure, that scares the crap out of Republicans like you whose whole world is partisan abuse of everything in sight. But hey, you're addicted to fear - it's your problem. And with your criminal gang out of power, it's not so much mine anymore.

Re:slashkos

[Xonstantine]

Yeah, ACORN's registration procedures are so rigorous and legal they paid a teenager to register 73 times

In another incident:
ROKITA LAUNCHES ACORN PROBE: Indianaâ(TM)s top elections official is calling for an investigation into more than 2,000 invalid voter registrations filed in Lake County by ACORN, a nonprofit group cited for similar problems in other states (Times of Northwest Indiana). Secretary of State Todd Rokita said he has âoesecured credible evidence of fraudâ and sent letters Friday asking the Indiana attorney general and Lake County prosecutor to join him in launching a review. Rokita said he also contacted federal prosecutors. âoeThere looks to be some felonious actions taken here,â Rokita told reporters. âoeI think the message to the voters and taxpayers of this state is that weâ(TM)re watching, and weâ(TM)re not going to tolerate the kind of behavior in the state.â ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, said it has registered more than 1.3 million voters nationwide, including more than 23,000 in Indiana. The group, which supports Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, claims it is being unfairly persecuted. âoeWe ourselves identified approximately 2,100 cards in Lake County that we believe were problematic,â ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring said Friday. âoeWe are the victim here because we have identified the problem, and now certain interests are turning that information against us.â Kettenring said most states require groups to turn in every voter registration solicited, which is why ACORN separated the suspect registration forms. One form bore the name of a Gary man who died last year while another attempted to register the Jimmy Johnâ(TM)s sandwich shop in Crown Point. Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker dismissed the call to action by Rokita, a Republican, as partisan âoefear mongering.â

Yeah, that's real legal and above board. Now I know what you mean by "your democracy". It's where you get to vote many times in the same election you fraudulent piece of shit.

Re:slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

Freddie Johnson isn't going to vote 73 times in that election, and perhaps not even at all.

If you were interested in the truth, you'd read what the editors of the Cleveland PD, in which that article you cited was published, explained about this latest hypocritical distraction by Republicans:

To be fair, ACORN did flag some cards as questionable, but by law even those had to be turned in -- only the board can reject them. ACORN also cooperated with the board in identifying problems, and has fired rule-breaking canvassers.

No matter what's implied on talk radio, keep this in mind: Bogus registrations do not equate to vote fraud. Freddie Johnson won't be voting 42 times on Nov. 4. With the elections board referring his case to the county prosecutor, he faces criminal charges instead.

You stupid Republican fucks owe every American an apology for stealing enough elections to put the greatest gangsters of all time at the controls of the greatest catastrophes ever wrought on America. Stop pretending that you have any standing to tell anyone anything. Just shut the fuck up and listen for a few years. Maybe then you'll have a chance at being right about something once.

I'm not holding my breath. Goodbye, and good riddance to your faithy Republican theocracy.

Any memory gaps?

[Fantastic Lad]

The article does sound rather garish, but considering systems within systems, parallel to systems, and funky classifications invented by paranoid department heads and Dick Cheney coming up with his own stamps with his own classifications of, "Shhh. Don't Tell Anyone" I find it hard to believe that things are nearly so well-ordered as you portray.

Do you have any odd memory gaps or personality quirks which you didn't have before you entered the service? Even if there has been zero improvement over the mind control systems used in the Seventies, then chances are you wouldn't even suspect a violation.

After all. . , is posting in widely read public forums to boast about credentials an encouraged activity for a HUMINT Collector?

You're fishy as hell regardless of what your real story happens to be, and if you are what you say you are, then you're probably a lot further gone than you realize. You have my sincere condolences if that's the case.

-FL

Re:Any memory gaps?

[Dun Malg]

The article does sound rather garish, but considering systems within systems, parallel to systems, and funky classifications invented by paranoid department heads and Dick Cheney coming up with his own stamps with his own classifications of, "Shhh. Don't Tell Anyone" I find it hard to believe that things are nearly so well-ordered as you portray.

Well ordered? Not even! There are so many different overlapping "compartments" with so many incongruous clearance requirements that getting clearance to do any sort of higher level work is often impossible. Classic example: My father worked for a defense contractor as head of a program. A couple years after he retired, they asked him to come back as a contractor to help them out for a couple months. His application for reinstatement of security clearance was rejected because he had spent 6 months in Europe that year and had visited some former eastern bloc countries. The fact that all of the information he was requesting clearance for was stuff he had already seen--- much of it he personally generated--- was irrelevant. The byzantine clearance rules forbade it.

No, the system is definitely screwed up. It just isn't screwed up at the basic level of classifications. That's very simple. All I'm trying to point out is that if people are looking for covert crap, they're looking in the wrong place if they're looking "above top secret".

Do you have any odd memory gaps or personality quirks which you didn't have before you entered the service?

Yeah, I have blackouts associated with many of the times I went out drinking, and I now find I duck when I hear anything that sounds like a gunshot.

Even if there has been zero improvement over the mind control systems used in the Seventies, then chances are you wouldn't even suspect a violation.

After all. . ,

See, they don't need to bother with covert mind control. All the mind control in the military is very overt and ham-fisted.

is posting in widely read public forums to boast about credentials an encouraged activity for a HUMINT Collector?

No, but I don't ever expect to work in the field again, so I say "fuck it". I had access to very little of strategic value. Most of what I did involved highly perishable tactical information (they're over yon hill!). Notice I do not share anything beyond what I did in general, and which country I did it in. And I would hardly call it "boasting", as every 18 year old with a 96-97-98 MOS gets a TOP SECRET security clearance. It's nothing special.

You're fishy as hell regardless of what your real story happens to be, and if you are what you say you are, then you're probably a lot further gone than you realize. You have my sincere condolences if that's the case.

Nutjobs! I am fairly fucked up, but it dint take no mind control rays to do it. I'm not sure what you find "fishy" about some dumbass grunt/bureaucrat whose job it was to interview people in the field, write down what they say, and classify the crap out of the reports so some jerkoff in Kabul could toss it in a file cabinet. I don't know much, but I do know the agony of dealing with classified data. There are a shitload of losers like me out there. It's not a very interesting job. Most classified work is classified for no particular reason other than Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Re:Any memory gaps?

[Fantastic Lad]

Thank-you for the clarification.

Cheers!

-FL

also, US Army troops now deployed against citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/print.html

Not sure why that hasn't made Slashdot yet. It's huge.
Far bigger than just a satellite spying on us.

I'm so sorry...

[feldicus]

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to monitor a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

feldicus

The public knowledge of feasible technology today.

[crhylove]

The public knowledge of feasible technology today is laughably behind. We've had radically advanced aircraft since the late 50s that are still not publicly disclosed, other than a few blueprints due to the FOIA.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/Silverbug.pdf

That is just the aircraft our government has not disclosed to the public. With advances in computers, satellites, and optics, is there any question that some part of our government can see almost anything on the planet, at any time? This combined with the universal wire tapping that has gone through and still in place....

We live in a society where the government can see everything you do, hear everything you do, does not count the votes at all, and even if they did count the votes, the media makes sure you are not informed about any valid candidates that are not completely beholden to the corporations that now run and control everything.

The Bill of Rights has been almost completely removed, the Constitution is almost completely void, and there is almost no military chance to revolt.

This is why I'm not breeding. I don't want to breed slaves.

No bailout ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hoped that the bailout would save the little guy, but NOT the banks.

There should be no bailouts ... for ANYONE or ANY THING!!

It's the Government meddling that has put us in this position in the first place (Freddie, Fannie, Community Reinvestment Act, etc). Let the freakin' market correct as it should. I've lost 12.5% in my 401k and my home value has probably declined 20% so far this year. I made the choices. I took the risks. I screwed up. I'm NOT looking for someone to bail me out.

I am livid that taxpayers will now probably have to pony up over $1.5 trillion to bail out miscreants, slackers, and fools. I am super annoyed that banks (e.g., Bank of America) are dropping existing mortgage rates from 7% (hardly outrageous for those of us that remember 18%) to 4.8% for those in foreclosure. I've been on time with my 6% payments for 16 yrs even when times were lean. I passed on the expensive vacations, new cars, cool toys. Where's my break?

People and corporations that make poor choices must be allowed to fail. It's fiscal thinning of the herd. Certainly this should be understandable to the secular /. crowd.

you gonna be da wormface

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic, but the phrase "corporate favorites John McCain and Barack Obama" shows an astounding lack of intelligent thought. It's easy to blame a faceless entity for your troubles, though, isn't it? "It's not my fault I'm a loozer! The multi-national conglomerates are keeping me down!"
Anyway, the reality is that COMPANIES OF ANY KIND DO NOT PAY TAXES. If you raise taxes on a corporation they don't pay it; the price of their product rises and YOU pay it. If you keep raising the tax, they go out of business and a Chinese company fills the void.
Companies are the manifestation of the top decision-maker, period. How is Exxon different from Ben Assfleck or Matt Demon? They both have a well-funded agenda...it's different but the same.

Reallly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you or have you worked for the US gov? Do you REALLY know what is possible, or are you just bushwhacking?

Re:also, US Army troops now deployed against citiz

[Arimus]

CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF

Given CBRNE is usually Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear Event then this looks more like a brigade setup to help civil authorities in the event of an incident which they are unable to cope with - most civil police departments lack the equipment (as do EMS) to deal with these events I'm not sure what the problem is..

Re:also, US Army troops now deployed against citiz

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm. Yeah, that's a lot bigger than a satellite. Sorry, but you guys are fucked.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Re:The public knowledge of feasible technology tod

[Digital End]

Ending your genetic chain isn't a victory... having kids that will bring the fucking thing down is... or growing the balls to bring it down for your kids.

Really?

[voraciousreader]

"You do not get to come up with an arbitratry third category of "didn't break the law but I still don like him" and then persecute people in that category..."

Unless that person is a racist. Or a sexist. Or a homophobe...

Now that I think about it, yes actually, we do get to do that, or at least, it's being done, despite what you seem to think.

Re:Really?

[Free the Cowards]

What I meant to say was that you don't get to create such a legal category. Such an action is unconscionable by all the principles that western law is based on.

Re:also, US Army troops now deployed against citiz

[lamapper]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/print.html

Not sure why that hasn't made Slashdot yet. It's huge. Far bigger than just a satellite spying on us.

I do not blame you for posting as AC.... I know that even though I post this information for others to look at and decide for themselves, just by posting it a certain percentage will label me a conspiracy nut and I might even get modded as trying to cause problems when I am just acknowledging that I too have heard about (article) this and am providing additional information for people to chew on and think about.

The USA is slowly being turned into a police state so that we can be controlled, systematically taking away freedoms from Americans. This site suggests there are over 800 camps around the USA. Here is a video about a FEMA camp in Indiana, supposedly closed in 1933, but has received funding within the last two years as a amtrak - train maintenance facility.

I heard Alex Jones on Coast to Coast, here is a link to his website infowars. Supposedly he predicted not just the current collapse over two years ago, but nailed the reason as sub-prime markets...I need to find the document with the date he first made the prediction. My Realtor and mortgage broker friends knew the Real Estate bubble would burst over 2 years back. As a Notary/Signing Agent we talked about what was going on. As a person who participated in the RTC bailout, I am not surprised that it is happening again. My friends 2 to 2 1/2 years ago did not tie the bubble bursting to the sub prime market as Alex supposedly did.

Per the show, Alex got interested in how the government worked in High School and has actively looked into many issues for well over 20 years. The amount of information he has is incredible...again, check it out for yourself.

Not only did he sound very, very credible, he stated that there is so much dis-information being put online much in his name that he sometimes has 50 - 100 utube videos removed that are slandering him, all posted in the same 24 hour period. If you listen to the recorded show you will hear it in his words, but he basically is very well known at utube and once they verify it is him, the videos are instantly yanked. When someone is attacked so ardently as he obviously is, someone does not want you and I to know or think too much about what he is saying. Again listen yourself and form your own opinion.

I ask myself, what do they NOT want me to know. There is a reason they distract us from what is really going on with other things.

Supposedly he has a document that shows the Banking groups' plans that they are currently following now...supposedly leaked by someone when they left the Federal Reserve system. I need to look for it and provide a link. He stated on the show, that they are not doing anything in secret but instead are following a well thought out and detailed plan. This same template has been used to take the physical assets of other countries using that country's own banks and currency to do it. The documents state that the countries were expected to default on the loans the group of banks provided. I believe the details are in this video End Game, however I am not a subscriber so I have not watched it yet.

I also admit that I currently do not have three or more sources for this information, so it is up to you to decide for yourself.

I personally don't believe there are as many coincidences as many would like for us to believe. I find it very coinci

Anti-(some)-war

[toddhisattva]

The soi-disant antiwar folks are the most violent shit ever to come out of a vagina.

They only strike when it's a war involving the United States.

The only real anti-war people are the Amish, Quakers, and Buddhists. The rest are useless idiots well on their way to treason.

More than one or two pixels:

[Anonymous Coward]

Behold, a schoolyard in Ontario:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=47.885545,79.101563&ie=UTF8&ll=43.85812,-79.086507&spn=0.00134,0.002414&t=h&z=19

You can see a taller adult with a longer shadow a bit to the north just above where the walkway meets the paved area.

If you use Google Earth to go to that location, you'll get a slightly sharper image.

I correctly identified the models of quite a few vehicles in the area by satellite before seeing them in meatspace.

The images aren't sharp enough to tell people apart, but keep in mind these pics are taken with a commercial satellite, the military probably has much better equipment. Being able to identify people is not far off.

Re:More than one or two pixels:

[johnny cashed]

I guess you missed the copyright notice in the lower right corner. Imagery was provided by http://www.firstbasesolutions.com/, who provide aerial imagery, not satellite. I don't know about the Google Earth imagery, but the link you provided isn't satellite.

What a stupid irresponsible moderation

[voraciousreader]

GP a point, I pointed out that he may have overlooked something and he clarified his point.

You know, a nice disourse like adults have.

Then you come bounding in here, firing off a flamebait mod because of...

What? There's no insult, the tome was normal and there was no inappropriate behavior by either of us.

Mod, you're an idiot and you moderation was garbage. if you don't like my completley accurate observation, stop hiding your cowardly ass behind bad moderation and discuss what you think is wrong.

You know, how adults who aren't idiots do.

Re:What a stupid irresponsible moderation

[Free the Cowards]

"Flamebait" and "Troll" are just code words for "I'm a stupid moderator and I don't like what you say". Maybe I should make that my sig....

I think moderators should not be anonymous. When you click the score of a post, show not only the moderations applied but who applied each one. That would probably all but eliminate this kind of abuse.

No such thing as above top secret

[gatkinso]

Not in the US anyway.

It can be compartmentalized (SCI, but then again some secret is SCI), special access only, caveated... the list goes on, but it is still top secret.

That was sorta the point....

[tjstork]

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

The point was that private companies are probably making satellites that exceed what military systems can do because the market is driving them to do so. Rather than believing the military has some super satellite that can count hairs on a head from 20,000 miles up in geo orbit, it might be more likely that private companies have passed them by when it comes to an end to end system. Even if the military's original data is better, I doubt that they could arrive at something more effective with a completely proprietary toolchain as the feds are won't to do, as opposed to a cheap PC style server set with some decent off the rack developer tools... either Windows or Linux with VS200x or Eclipse...

Re:The public knowledge of feasible technology tod

[crhylove]

I couldn't agree more, actually.

It's a shame...

[intothemiddle]

That while your privacy is being taken away rapidly, that you all just start a political debate. Considering I'm usually marked off-topic..

As usual though.. no one seems to be bothered to do anything about it.. can just see complaints and arguments on here. If you're all going to act like lambs, expect to end up in the slaughterhouse!

How to avoid surveillance from satellites...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a smart-person's "howto" about avoiding (or deterring) surveillance from satellites (that doesn't include other methods, like being tailed).

Once we have the light-bending cloaking technology suitable for human use, that may be one route. But realistically, spies evade surveillance all the time... and we can learn from their tricks.

silly denial of what is in plain sight

[r00t]

SAP and SCI are obviously above top secret.

You can deny it all you want, with nonsense
about how compartments aren't really "above",
but any reasonable interpretation is that
they are in fact above top secret.

More restrictions, more background checking,
a subset of top secret people qualified...
The only reasonable conclusion that that SAP
and SCI are above top secret.

The constant denial is completely silly.