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.'"

6 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Good by jimmyswimmy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Intel assets should not be used to spy on our own country. They have too much money to spend on this sort of thing. Imagine the DOD budget being spent to enforce laws. Traffic tickets being issued because a satellite saw you going too fast, or jaywalking. Obviously I'm going for histrionics here, but it's a slippery slope once you take away the absolute prohibition.

    --

    Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
  2. Re:Like targetting agreements. by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In lots of jurisdictions, a cop could just smash through your door and chalk it up to a mistake, with few consequences.

    Sure, they wouldn't be able to prosecute you, but that wouldn't make the events a whole lot more convenient to you.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  3. Great news, IMO by shadowofwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Great news, IMO by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A classic example of this sort of thing is taking photographs in public locations. The law allows for it, but law enforcement has been known to be to lacking in an understanding of that. As a photographer I would rather have the option of explaining to a policeman my rights (and perhaps showing an excerpt of the law) than to be hauled off to court for something that would eventually be thrown out. That latter wastes my time, the courts time and a whole lot of public money.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  4. Re:Like targetting agreements. by SputnikPanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The interesting thing here -- and this comment is partly motivated by your sig -- is that this killing of the domestic satellite spying program is not a liberal action but a conservative one. If you need an example of where real conservatives and today's Republicans differ, here it is. Republicans such as Peter King will say this is "a step back in the war on terror" but a real conservative would say the U.S. government never had any business spying on its citizens in the first place.

  5. Re:DHS should kill by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know why you were modded "flamebait", but I agree ATF and the DEA should be abolished; alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are legal and the ATF is simply a holdover from alcohol prohibition. Drugs should be legalized, as drug laws cause all the problems they purport to solve.

    But you can't have government without some means of payiing for it, and I, for one, don't want some rich asshole who already has a lower tax rate than me able to easily cheat on his taxes. I pay my taxes and it irks me that someone tries to get out of paying theirs. When you cheat on your taxes, you steal from ME.