Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security's Space-Based Spying Goes Live
BountyX writes "While America's attention has shifted to the economic meltdown and the presidential race between corporate favorites John McCain and Barack Obama, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) National Applications Office (NAO) 'will proceed with the first phase of a controversial satellite-surveillance program, even though an independent review found the department hasn't yet ensured the program will comply with privacy laws.' NAO will coordinate how domestic law enforcement and 'disaster relief' agencies such as FEMA use satellite imagery intelligence (IMINT) generated by US spy satellites. Based on available evidence, hard to come by since these programs are classified 'above top secret,' the technological power of these military assets are truly terrifying."
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.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Then limit your lawbreaking to only cloudy days.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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?
or this
...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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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 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.
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.