DHS To Kill Domestic Satellite Spying Program

mcgrew writes "The Bush administration had plans in place to use spy satellites to spy on American citizens. This morning the AP reports that new DHS head Janet Napolitano has axed those plans. 'The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes. The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns. The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request, according to Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department's classified intelligence budget.'"

Comments

Re:Like targetting agreements.

[tjstork]

Do you have any idea how much red-tape laws create? ... This is a huge deterrent for corruption

It only deters people that think they have to follow the law, not be above it, and in our government, we have more of the latter.

Re:It's Far, Far More Efficient...

[dkleinsc]

Well, usually what they do to get around regulations preventing the CIA from spying on the US (for example) is simply work out an agreement with an ally, so that (for instance) the CIA sends intel on Israelis to Mossad in return for Mossad sending intel on Americans to the CIA. So in fact outsourcing is often exactly the sort of thing intelligence agencies are up to.

Re:DHS should kill

[schwit1]

That should be just the start. Let's add these:

ATF
DEA
IRS

Re:Good

[davidwk]

At last we have a little good news to compare with the various stories that come from England. They are definitely sliding down the slippery slope. Too bad - I kinda like Britain. Seems like it will take a miracle for them to restore their liberties.

Great news, IMO

[shadowofwind]

A problem with camera surveillance, is much more innocent than criminal behavior is in view, so a fairly high proportion of suspicious behavior is actually innocent behavior that looks improbably suspicious. Statistically, its the same problem as with false positives in drug tests. Compounding this problem is that when law enforcement is impersonal and from a distance, the accused often is not given a fair, face-to-face chance to defend themselves before having their lives temporarily wrecked. By the time it goes to trial, it has already cost large legal fees and possibly employment.

In my own arrest a few years ago, for innocent behavior that looked suspicious from afar, I was never once interviewed by a law enforcement officer or prosecutor and given a chance to tell my story, right up to the morning of the trial.

There was to me surprisingly little public comment when the domestic satellite surveillance program was announced a couple of years ago. Its nice that the Obama administration seems to be doing the right thing with this anyway.

Re:Great news, IMO

[shadowofwind]

Right. The system where any random person or machine with limited information can accuse you of a crime, you get arrested by default, and you have to pay thousands of dollars before even having a chance to argue your innocence, is nuts. Formally, there has to have been an "investigation" before the judge issued the warrant for the arrest. That investigation should include trying to find out whether the accused has done anything wrong, and that should usually involve talking with the accused. The further disconnected the police get from the community the less likely this is to happen though, and the use of camera systems tends to have that effect.

Re:Great news, IMO

[shadowofwind]

I was seen with property that the accuser incorrectly imagined was theirs, and accused of theft.

Re:Great news, IMO

[shadowofwind]

In my case the police showed up at my house at night, cuffed me, and took me to jail, but at least they didn't threaten to shoot me.

As life tribulations go, this is pretty mild stuff. But I think its instructive. I've always been Mr. Law Abiding, with no underage drinking, no drugs, no speeding, no jaywalking....is the legal system about justice? Not so much as I would have imagined, apparently.

Re:Great news, IMO

[shadowofwind]

You can't make a comment like this and not tell us what they thought you did.

Stealing building supplies. Someone saw me carrying some boards and initial assummed that I took them from a nearby construction site. The initial suspicion was arguably reasonable under the circumstances. The problem in my view was the way the thing went down afterwards, with the physical coercion, the indifference to right and wrong, particularly by the prosecutor, and it costing me several times the maximum fine in legal fees, even though I could easily demonstrate my innocence to anyone interested. I'd be less vague but it would take pages to spell out all the relevant details. I don't think my personal sob story is important compared to the bigger picture of the direction we're headed as a society. The essential point I want to get across, all details aside, is do not assume that if you're law abiding and successful it is entirely because its what you deserve, and that you and your children will therefore remain safe. And don't suppose that the institutions that wield power care much about your well-being, like the good guys do on TV. Many people are consciously jaded, and many more are uninterested in facing the painful effects of their own actions. Its not that big of a fall from where we are now to something really ugly. I realize I haven't demonstrated this with the meager facts I have provided, but hopefully a few people who are on the fence about surveillance issues can think about it from a wider angle (to use an unfortunate metaphor). There were no surveillance cameras involved in my case, but I can see clearly how surveillance systems lend themselves to these sort of things, since I know some things about video surveillance from my job.

Re:Good

[Sobrique]

That would be a good thing. Oppression and the removal of liberties is the price we pay for getting too complacent and comfortable. And we have. Indolent and lazy, far too happy to blather about Big Brother than to actually care about freedom. Either we won't notice the lack, and will quite happily settle down as the mindless cattle that we are, or something will have to change. Unfortunately, there's some things that don't change evolutionary - when you've got a power system in place, it's a very rare individual that will willingly cede that power. Because even if they're an idealist, they'll realise that the people who accept the reins of oppression willingly are too _stupid_ to govern themselves.
So I say bring the oppression. Lets have more surveillance, more security, more monitoring. Let's have more nanny state. Because it won't roll back - it's just too much power to discard, and there's still 'good' arguments for why you need more of it. And the people making the arguments... well, they stand to gain greatly one way, but not so much the other.
That's something that will only change through revolution. Root and branch, our political system has degenerated into nepotism and cyclical cronyism - as nothing really changes, apart from the colour scheme on the propaganda, and the political class continue to gain in power.
Revolution is all that will resolve that - because those in charge like being in charge.

Re:Like targetting agreements.

[mcgrew]

Or simply lie to a judge to get a warrant. Man who beat cocaine rap sues the city; whistleblower's case survives

Vose, former head of the SPD narcotics unit, prepared a detailed memo in early 2005 that outlined problems with searches conducted by Carpenter and Graham, specifically the use of "trash rips," in which police sift through a suspect's garbage to find evidence of illegal (usually drug-related) activity and use that evidence to obtain a search warrant.

A few weeks after Vose submitted his memo, Graham and Carpenter performed a trash rip at Washington's residence at 1429 Guemes Court and found plastic bags that field-tested positive for cocaine residue, according to the affidavit Graham submitted to a judge.

However, when the Illinois State Police crime lab tested the plastic bags the detectives said they had found in Washington's trash, no drug residue was found. Without that evidence, the detectives had no right to search Washington's home [see "Springfield's worst nightmare," Feb. 15].

Washington's complaint contains four counts: conspiracy and false arrest allegations involving the search warrant, an additional count of false arrest against the now-retired Lt. Rickey Davis -- who, in May 2006, had Washington rearrested for "harassing" him at Gold's Gym -- and a claim against the city and the detectives' supervisors, Davis and Deputy Chief William Rouse, for maintaining a "practice and policy" that allowed certain detectives to "operate as rogue police officers." The suit was filed on behalf of Washington and Jennifer Jenkins, a woman who was living with Washington at the time of his arrest.

City's legal bills for ex-cops' defense expected to soar

From what I have heard

[kenp2002]

"... overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.."

From what I have heard from certain people, they already have been doing this since Regan. The largest use for this was domestically was tracking the drug trade including but not limited to:

Large distribution rings by tracking differential images for trafficing patterns (e.g. large number of cars at 2 am at a pier that only stick around for a hour or two)

Using the IR module for finding growers in remote areas with camoed green houses.

Using the information to track abnormal warehouse activity.

Spying seems a slanted term since the cops don't SPY on people, they investigate. Same with the FBI and ATF.

So what we really have is DHS decides for what appear to be largely buget issues, not taking the information, THAT IS ALREADY BEING COLLECTED, and using it for DHS purposes. Since the DHS is a new agency they probably didn't have access to that data. This sounds largely like a formality to get them access to the data. Now the DHS will have to step through the FBI and local law enforcement channels which was the whole reason we created the DHS in the first place.

Seriously, this amounts to "The cops can use it, the FBI can use it, but the 'new' intelligence community can't." Here contract a plane to get your imagining instead.

If there was a privacy issue why not raise it when ATF raids a pot grower? Why now and not under Regan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2? And why no outcry over the fact it has been used for years already? Surely the use of images from those darn helicopters and airplanes must be a privacy conern also? Right? You know those images you can get from the county and local city... Hello? Sensible Dissent where are you? (in my best Shaggy impersonation).