Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I think these things are as symbolic as the targetting agreements the USA used to make with the likes of Russia. "Oh, are missiles are no longer pointed at each other." Except that, its really not too hard to change that. Similarly, if the President wants to get a picture, covertly, of USA territory, he certainly can. It's not like the satellites don't ever fly over the USA.
This is my sig.
We are responsible for what happens within our own country. The DHS is responsible for knowing what happens within our own country.
I agree that domestic spying isn't the way to go; after all, we should be able to earn the trust of the people within our nation.
I'm not fond of police state policies. After all, it focuses too much power in one location, and power breeds corruption.
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
This was just the moment when they stopped to exist *officially*. ^^
See if can spot a satellite, spying on your country. I bet you can, and will still be able to in a decade.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
While your post makes sense, I simply don't see Google as being willing to join that group of people.
Google's policies are generally the "nice guy" approach to things. They might be powerful, but they don't like to put themselves in a situation of potentially big liability.
(just imagine, google's servers could be hacked, revealing who is where and what they're doing). Google has enough problems trying to fend off the litigation it feels it doesn't deserve; why add to that plate?
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
I prefer to think of law enforcement as a good thing. If we can cut the costs of law enforcement personell (which, by the way, can be more easiliy corruptable) and use more effecient methods to enforce the laws we have, then I think we should. If you believe you should not get a ticket for speeding, then you need to petition a law change... not expect law enforcement to turn a blind eye.
But more to the point, I don't think it's fair that Americans expect their government to do everything for them and blame the leadership when a terrorist attack is successful and then complain when the DOD actually tries to improve their surveillance, with VERY LITTLE infringement on your privacy at that.
One more comment: I am actually scared the way our country is going that it is starting to make personal convictions a criminal offense (go religious freedom), so perhaps what the DHS has done here is actually a good thing despite my general opinion of government surveillance.
Or just blacken it so that privacy and rights concerns will become moot? Cant complain about what you don't know about.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
DHS can probably secretly fund Google to develop a realtime Google Maps/Earth app.
All in the name of national security of course.
Seems that I was taught, when the megolomaniacs speak
of what they are NOT going to do?
"First they deny it, then they do it!"