US Air Force Can 'Accidentally' Spy On American Citizens For 90 Days

AstroPhilosopher writes "Researchers at the Federation of American Scientists have discovered documentation (PDF) that allows the military to keep footage from drones for up to 90 days to determine whether further investigation is warranted. Besides using footage from natural disasters and monitoring of domestic military bases, all that's truly required is for an operator to 'accidentally' have the camera running while flying."

Comments

Yep, more of the same

[colinrichardday]

Are Americans going to tolerate this? Post 9/11, probably.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

I'm having a hard time seeing what is wrong with this.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[geekmux]

Are Americans going to tolerate this? Post 9/11, probably.

The only thing I find more disturbing than questioning if Americans are going to "tolerate" shit like this, is the grand delusion some people are under that Americans can actually do anything about it anymore.

You act like We have a say. Wake up.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[nrambo]

we cant be bothered with worrying about the violations of our civil liberties, 'dancing with the stars' is on...

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Rob Kaper]

You act like We have a say. Wake up.

There is no Berlin wall surrounding the USA. You are free to leave.

Countries like mine (Netherlands) would be happy to have skilled workers from the western world.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Moheeheeko]

You mean like Europeans tolerate cameras on every road?

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Because American law enforcement is not a black or white thing. If they have "suspicion" they "detain" you. All of which is absolutely against the US Constitution, but the powermongers and heavy-handed thugs love beating on people and locking them up with NO trial and they do it anyway. Years later you have to prove yourself innocent, and then you might be let go but with no compensation and with a record. In other words, if those drones "see" something they're "suspicious" about, you're in deep doo-doo. I think they're trying too hard. People who want to hide evil activity know that drones are watching and they're smart enough to hide it. It's us ordinary good citizens who get the bad treatment of TSA, police, FBI, CIA, etc., while the real criminals do their evil.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[JustAnotherIdiot]

You going to put up the money for me to break my lease, transport my furniture, new living situation, new job, etc?
Moving is not free, if I got those offers outside the US, I'd accept them in a heartbeat.
There's a reason our country does everything in their power to keep us all broke, the second I can afford to get out, I'm gone.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

This ain't the cops, it's the air force, exactly how often is the air force accidentally spying on us?

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Scarred Intellect]

You act like We have a say. Wake up.

We do. Voting.We got ourselves into this mess and we perpetuate it by voting for the same sort of morons over and over again. Purge the system. Vote every incumbent out. Never vote for politicians again, we don't need politicians in government, we need true leaders who understand industry.

You're part of the problem with that attitude, that helpless, infantile view of not being able to do anything about it. Unfortunately, most of America shares that point of view, which is only a problem because most of America shares that point of view, which is only a problem because most of America shares that point of view...

Do something. Write letters to your senators. To your congressman (and to be politically correct, to your congresswomen). Call them. Don't vote for the status quo. Let people know you are standing up for what is right. They just need to see someone doing something, because most of America is a flock of sheep. They don't know, nor care, about the issues plaguing their life because, like a poster said below, they can't be bothered, 'Dancing with the Stars' is on.

Do something, and be public about it. Perhaps I have a naive point of view of it, but it's better than rolling over and giving up. At THAT point, you have lost everything. When you've given up, then all hope is lost. America hasn't given up, not quite yet.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[sl4shd0rk]

Are Americans going to tolerate this?

Most will, yes.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[triffid_98]

I agree completely. None of us voted on this. Other than living with it my choices are


1. Say f*it and leave the country for some other slightly less Orwellian state. Considering that there are more government owned security cameras than people in the UK, it surely isn't there.

2. Convince several million other like minded individuals to turn off American Idol and consider voting for a party that will revoke this stupid crap, which incidentally is neither Democrat or Republican.

3. Join the NRA and with their lobbyist support convince congress that I have a constitutional right to install a SAM battery on my lawn.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[macson_g]

That is except Central Europeans, no matter how 'western' and skilled they are.
example: http://www.meldpuntmiddenenoosteuropeanen.nl/

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

I'm sorry, if you think this is a threat to your freedom you are insane. There are so many other threats to your freedom you should worry about because they actually impact lives, this is more of a hypothetical what if issue.

So hypothetically if the Air Force saw something suspicious on portions of their surveillance that happened over the US then the Air Force would hand that information off to which ever law enforcement agency has jurisdiction. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[nedlohs]

So the sacrifice isn't worth it to you. That just says that you will, in fact, put up with the current amount of shit.

Most likely there's some point at which it would be enough and you'd actually look into leaving - work out which places you can get a visa for, check job markets, arrange for shorter term leases, etc, etc.

At some further point you might be willing to just abandon all your stuff, overstay a tourist visa somewhere or work illegally on a non-work visa.

But clearly as of right now, you will put up with it.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[LateArthurDent]

You going to put up the money for me to break my lease, transport my furniture, new living situation, new job, etc?

Well, you get the job first. But relocation expenses for skilled workers are fairly common, even within the US.

That said, I don't buy that we don't have a say. These types of things are happening because literally half the country is in favor of it. The conservatives (not the libertarian conservatives, the other guys) believe we need to take these actions in order to protect the country for terrorism. If you see something the government is doing which actually has negligible support among the population, then you can say we don't have a say. There's really not much of that going around, so the blame still lies with us.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[colinrichardday]

I meant "Post 9/11" in the sense that 9/11 allowed the government to treat terrorism as a bogeyman to attempt to frighten us into accepting encroachments on our liberties.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[colinrichardday]

exactly how often is the air force accidentally spying on us?

Too damn much!

Re:Yep, more of the same

[daveschroeder]

What's disturbing here is that people think that standard procedures designed to prevent unauthorized collection, and address it if it occurs, is really intended to be a secret way to constantly spy on Americans for no reason.

Keep in mind that the courts have repeatedly upheld that visualization of a person or an exterior area from an aircraft does not constitute a search. Also, the exceptions here are for INTERNATIONAL terrorism and INTERNATIONAL narcotics trafficking, two things that have a very specific meaning under US law and military doctrine. I know people will immediately say something like, "But InfoWars told me that DHS has declared anyone with an XYZ bumper sticker might be a terrorist!" or "Some guy smoking a joint in his yard could now get busted by a drone!" but that's not what international terrorism or narcotics means.

So given that the whole function of such UAS in American airspace is routine civil assistance and nothing nefarious, you're really telling me that if a drone did happen to see "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," that you think it's just a fab idea to do nothing about it? More in my other post.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Sir_Sri]

And if they are spying on you, even accidentally should they be allowed to immediately delete that information to hide the fact that they did it?

One can argue over the figure of 90 days a lot. But the airforce will accidentally or incidentally spy on people. Even if you take as lawful* 'surveying a natural disaster' they could capture images on the periphery of a disaster area which could count as spying. There should be some sort of policy or procedure in place to know what was seen, by whom, when.

*I have no idea if this is a point that would be taken for granted by I would guess *some* government agency will have the authority to survey natural disasters and the same basic premise applies to them.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[daveschroeder]

Jeng, you're talking to people who think that the Air Force, which currently is YEARS behind on the drone data it already has, now has nothing better to do than spy on Americans.

Furthermore, this is not even just anything that might be suspicious seen during operations. It's only "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," which is a very narrow scope under US law.

Cue the conspiracy theory: "But, but, but, the big bad Utah Data Center is going to mine this data automatically! The idea is to not need people to analyze this footage! The Air Force is going to blanket the nation in drones, and the NSA is going to analyze it all with computers! The exception for international terrorism and narcotics is just a subterfuge, a sleight of hand, to distract us from their true intent!"

Yes, people really think this. It would be amusing if it weren't so shameful and sad.

To say nothing of the US military satellite systems and manned US military aircraft that fly over the US every day, and have been used in civil assistance and force protection for decades. But hey, this is the slashdot comments section: facts and sense need not apply!

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

Rather than make my own argument I'll just direct you to the best answer.

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2839071&cid=39942795

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Sperbels]

There is no Berlin wall surrounding the USA. You are free to leave. Countries like mine (Netherlands) would be happy to have skilled workers from the western world.

One person leaving isn't an issue. Mass immigration/emigration is not well tolerated by anybody though...except certain countries that are looking for a cheap, non voting, slave workforce and those countries seem to be going to great lengths to ignore the problem.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[ewieling]

When GWB was re-elected I investigated both Canada and the Netherlands as places to move to.

Unless you have a degree neither country wants you.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[ShanghaiBill]

we don't need politicians in government, we need true leaders who understand industry.

Interesting. Can you name, say, three real people, that you consider to be "true leaders"?

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Anonymous Coward]

He's saying americans used to stand for something. They used to stand for freedom. Now...well look at the comments of people here condoning the government increasing its reach and patronizing anyone who feels that their freedoms are at risk.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[element-o.p.]

The 4th Amendment says that "We, the People" are free from unreasonable search and seizure without due process. Spying can be construed to be a "search." Therefore, the U.S. government is not allowed to spy on it's own people without due process. However, the Air Force now has a loophole that says, if you just happen to have a drone in the air near (a) person(s) of interest, and if you accidentally had the camera running while the drone was in the air, and just coincidentally happen to catch footage of something "interesting," you can keep and inspect that footage for up to 90 days without providing the due process that is required by the Bill of Rights.

In other words, they've just thrown out the protections afforded by the 4th Amendment (not that they've haven't already been watered down and defecated upon already with things like the Patriot Act, NSL's, NSA wiretapping and TSA, but I digress). It doesn't take much imagination to see how this could lead to all sorts of abuses.

I rather suspect that it will become S.O.P. to fly drones with the cameras "accidentally" left on, if it isn't already.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Sir_Sri]

If it's so bad sell your furniture and move the day your lease expires.

But frankly, if you don't have the skills to get you a job that pays enough in the US that you can afford to leave, don't be hopeful about finding work (and therefore getting immigration) with the rest of us. Canada and Australia are tremendously fortunate we have oil and metals respectively, the Europeans are saddled with layers upon layers of political stupidity leading to tremendous economic uncertainty. The one things we all want are skilled labourers, but if you're one of those in the US you can afford to leave. Or should be able to if you know how to manage your money.

If you're going to emigrate *from* india or china or the like the US wouldn't be at the top of the list on places to move to. But if you're in the US your options on where you can go, if you can't be successful in the US, are very limited.

If you actually really honestly want to leave you need to both apply for immigration and apply for work in your target area first. The problem is that here for example you have to say that you are 'not presently eligible to work in canada'. Once you can get immigration status you can actually move there, or at the very least get a reasonable prospect of getting a job. But I hate to break it to you, if you have a shitty pay nothing job in the US, you'll end up an only marginally less shitty job elsewhere. Sure, you'll get more vacation time and healthcare in europe, you'll get healthcare in canada or australia, but you'll still have low pay and low mobility.

If you have skills, someone will pay to move you happily, even within the US. If you don't have skills we don't want you.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[IndustrialComplex]

People have these fears for precisely the reasons you specified.

Because the courts repeatedly find in favor of the government regarding searches, expansion of authority, and general 'oops we sent a swat team to the wrong house but we thought it was the right house so we arent culpable for shooting you' cases.

If the government was shown to actually respect the limitations on its authority, you would have a point.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[mmaniaci]

...we need true leaders who understand industry.

So more industry shills... meet the new boss...

Unfortunately, most of America shares that point of view, which is only a problem because most of America shares that point of view...

That's because its usually the case. I can't even count the number of times I've called or emailed Feinstein, yet she's still off in her own world. I can count the number of times I voted for her: 0.

Let people know you are standing up for what is right

And they usually just pass us off as idealistic soapboxers. Try explaining net neutrality to any random person. They'll laugh you off the sidewalk and into the gutter with the anarchists and birthers before you get past "common carrier".

Perhaps I have a naive point of view of it, but it's better than rolling over and giving up.

INCREDIBLY naive. Money runs politics, and most money is in the hands of very few people. Until money is out of politics, or the distribution of wealth gets even (hahahahaha) we're fucked. Voting only makes a difference when the candidates aren't pre-selected.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[interval1066]

We do. Voting.

LMFAO. Stay the way you are, man. The rest us us will keep laughing. Its all part of the plan. Soo as the FFA allows drones anywhere those things will be 1984 helicopters, buzzing outside people's windows. You'll be able to turn the telescreen down, but never off.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[strength_of_10_men]

I'm with Jeng on this one. I'm not sure your definition of "search" applies here. See this article for a better description. Note that it specifically addresses monitoring from the air

Time and time again, the courts have ruled that if it's visible from a public (air)space, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, including from the air.

So while I'd rather not have the situation in TFA, I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Sir_Sri]

ya that came out wrong. there obviously is a policy or procedure in place. Whether that should have an 89 90 or 91 day retention period (or 45 days or 180 day) is a discussion for somewhere other than /. Maybe people who are actually experts in how long these things take to deal with.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So hypothetically if the Air Force saw something suspicious on portions of their surveillance that happened over the US then the Air Force would hand that information off to which ever law enforcement agency has jurisdiction.

At which point all of the evidence should be thrown out and the individual who did the spying should be dishonorably discharged for violating the constitution that they swore an oath to uphold. For reference see the Oath of Enlistment and Oath of Office as well as the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. This may seem a bit harsh, but this seems to be yet another instance of government slowly eroding our rights. All rights are important and all should be preserved, even the ones you may not agree with.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[wonderboss]

You can leave physically, but you are still a U.S. Citizen. You will pay U.S. taxes and
are subject to all U.S. laws.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[daveschroeder]

But that's precisely the way our framework of law and judicial oversight works. A question arises over whether a government activity is appropriate, the courts — often many layers of courts — examine the activity, and decide one way or the other. The courts do not always side with government, as can be seen by the recent SCOTUS GPS ruling — and even that ruling some take issue with, because it doesn't speak explicitly to integrated GPS capabilities in vehicles. Technology is moving faster than ever, more and more information is stored in an electronic form, the government has more technical capabilities than ever, and "the people" learn more, faster, and in more detail, about the activities of government than at any time in the history of our country.

This discussion is case-in-point. The problem is that people constantly take something like the international terrorism and international narcotics exemption and take it to mean that it must be there to allow for illegal spying, all the time. Whenever a surveillance capability is used domestically for any purpose, even those you might agree with, there is always a chance that a US Person may be collected upon — though the courts have upheld that surveillance from aircraft does not constitute a search, the US military is prohibited from engaging in routine law enforcement activities by a comprehensive and well-understood body of statute and case law. Drones are here — they're another technology. Do we enjoin our own military from flying manned aircraft over our own country? What prevents abuse? The same thing that always has: the law. That's the system we have. Does it mean no government activity has ever constituted an abuse? No, but it also doesn't mean all activities are abuse, all the time. What it means is that we develop regulations, rules, guidance, and safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate abuse.

The rule of law is a core framework of our society. In this example, we can clearly see an extension of that process which seeks to expressly specify what happens IF information relating to a US Person is encountered during the course of other activities, such as routine operations or assistance to civil authorities.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[nedlohs]

Sacrifice? Try surviving/living. It not nontrivial to find a job overseas, assuming that person can even deal with the cultural differences and language. Between living on the streets and living under "oppression" that you don't directly see, the choice is fairly obvious.

Exactly. The current amount of shit is acceptable, and you will choose it over poverty elsewhere.

But that even assume they can afford the plane flight in the first place.

You don't need a plane ticket to go to Canada or Mexico. Sure if you live in the central US it'll take a lot of time and effort but people much poorer have gone to greater lengths to flee places before. People manage to flee from Cuba to the US without catching a plane, I'm sure the other way would work too.

WIth many people living paycheck to paycheck, can't is literally can't.

And yet countless people have fled from murderous regimes before without even having a paycheck in the first place. In fact surely the less you have the easier it is abandon everything.

Many people can't afford to choose their jobs, and leases here in the US are NOT negotiable usually.

Leases are perfectly "negotiable", you can stay in a hotel on a daily basis. You can live in homeless shelters and under bridges.

Some people can't even manage to get passport.

People have managed to flee East Berlin (when there was a wall) and North Korea and so on. Places in which a passport is irrelevant since the men with guns won't let you leave anyway.

There is also the issue in that, there is NO place on earth that's perfect. You move out of state only to deal with a different set of problems, or worst, the same problems.

Of course. Which means the problems where you are aren't bad enough to provide enough incentive for you to leave.

Note, I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing. I certainly haven't left the US so clearly I don't think the current level of shit justifies bailing out.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[rot26]

Just how many accounts do you have? Apparently at least three.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Some of us won't leave, like myself, but will try to change the system from within. What is really needed in the US is a very vocal minority or respectable people to flood members of the US House and Senate e-mail, phone, fax, and snail mail boxes with clear messages that these are things we do no want. The Occupy movement is to easily marginalized as being a bunch of young disaffected youths, while the tea party was marginalized as basically being a bunch of religious extremists or racists. It needs to be made clear that members who vote to support such thing will not be returning to office, this can easily be done by telling them that you will voting for them or contributing to their campaign next election cycle and will be supporting their opponent and encouraging others to do the same. Finally people need to get involved earlier than election day or even primary day as at those stages you already have a pool of candidates and are stuck picking the least shitty one.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[CowTipperGore]

You're part of the problem with that attitude, that helpless, infantile view of not being able to do anything about it.

No, you're part of the problem trying to convince people that more of the same will somehow produce different results. Sure we can do something about it, but that process is likely to be very ugly for a long time and offers no guarantee of better results at the end. Your suggestions are pointless and you even acknowledge as much when you point out that most of America doesn't care.

Unfortunately, most of America shares that point of view...most of America is a flock of sheep. They don't know, nor care, about the issues plaguing their life because, like a poster said below, they can't be bothered, 'Dancing with the Stars' is on.

See? You have the puzzle pieces in your hand but you refuse to put them in place because you don't like the picture they make.

Voting.We got ourselves into this mess and we perpetuate it by voting for the same sort of morons over and over again. Purge the system. Vote every incumbent out. Never vote for politicians again, we don't need politicians in government, we need true leaders who understand industry.

Where are these true leaders with no political or government experience campaigning for our votes? The voting process is controlled by the Republican/Democratic party and you follow their rules or you don't get to play. Exceptions to that rule are few and far in between. Even those who are allowed to participate in the early going are weeded out well before many voters go to the polls. Did you see the results from yesterday's primary in West Virginia? The Republican nomination has already been granted to Mitt Romney although Ron Paul refuses to quit. Santorum, who is not longer running and is supporting Romney came in second on the Republican side. The only alternative to Obama was a guy in prison in Texas who registered for shit and giggles; do you think he'd be a better President than Obama?

Perhaps I have a naive point of view of it...

Indeed. I can appreciate your desire to do something instead of nothing. However, you are supporting the status quo with your arguments, regardless of what you claim to want.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

From what I understand from other posters you are correct that anyone responsible for this in the Military would get court-marshaled over leaving the cameras on over the US which makes this even more of a non-issue.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well I don't know that they understand industry, but I would off up Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul as actual leaders. I may not agree with them but they have principals and do stand for something. Also none of them are my representative or senator.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Scarred Intellect]

Not more industry shills, not business leaders. Leaders of people, leaders that know the industries. Let's put Richard Stallman in the FCC. He's certainly not an industry shrill.

Voting MAKES the difference. The electoral system is broken, certainly, but it isn't handled the way it was intended to. A simple majority popular vote in a state gets ALL the states electoral votes, that's not right.

I've talked to several people about net neutrality. Afterward, they all understand it well enough to decide for themselves (some even do opt against it, which I take to mean I keep bias out of the explanation). You must be doing something wrong when explaining it to them and here it is: "common carrier." Keep the technical terms to a minimum. Sure, "common carrier" isn't REALLY a technical term, but it sounds technical to them. You have to explain it in common terms.

Here's basically how I do it. Take the internet right now, that's all we want to keep (usually this is enough, don't change it AT ALL). Say you have Comcast as your provider. No what they want to push is a tiered system, where, say, Microsoft pays Comcast more than Google does, so your Google traffic is slowed down, but Bing is super fast, so you might switch to that; and since youTube is owned by Google, their traffic gets slowed down because Microsoft paid for the priority.

You have to use simple terms, and relate it to stuff they care about (youtube).

I view your post as you being defeated before you even try. Money controls politics, that's great, but voting controls who even gets into office, and who is into office determines whether money controls their politics.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[mcgrew]

You must have forgotten your glasses then, or have never read the Constitution. The US military isn't supposed to police the citizenry.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[geekmux]

You act like We have a say. Wake up.

We do. Voting.We got ourselves into this mess and we perpetuate it by voting for the same sort of morons over and over again. Purge the system. Vote every incumbent out. Never vote for politicians again, we don't need politicians in government, we need true leaders who understand industry.

You're part of the problem with that attitude, that helpless, infantile view of not being able to do anything about it. Unfortunately, most of America shares that point of view, which is only a problem because most of America shares that point of view, which is only a problem because most of America shares that point of view...

Do something. Write letters to your senators. To your congressman (and to be politically correct, to your congresswomen). Call them. Don't vote for the status quo. Let people know you are standing up for what is right. They just need to see someone doing something, because most of America is a flock of sheep. They don't know, nor care, about the issues plaguing their life because, like a poster said below, they can't be bothered, 'Dancing with the Stars' is on.

Do something, and be public about it. Perhaps I have a naive point of view of it, but it's better than rolling over and giving up. At THAT point, you have lost everything. When you've given up, then all hope is lost. America hasn't given up, not quite yet.

Do something about it? Be public? Gee, the last time people got fed up writing letters and "went public" they were (and still are) labeled "domestic terrorists". Feel free to look up the recent laws passed surrounding that little badge of dishonor, and then talk to me about how vocal people should be.

Voting doesn't do jack shit when you're doing nothing but voting for the lesser of two lying assholes, only for one of them to fill the position of head puppet who has no real power anyway. Any of the true "leaders" that were part of this election were financially pushed out by the ones still buying the election.

Corporations rule the world, not elected officials. You want to effect change for the better? Then start punishing those who are causing the most damage. Instead of punishing, they were all handed bailouts, practically rewarding the behavior that caused the financial meltdown.

Only two words are needed to validate who is truly in control: Campaign Contributions.

I haven't given up. Not by a long shot. I'm merely a realist. And America has given up. It is the very reason we have the Constitution being destroyed with each passing day. In summary, the Freedom and control you had (or thought you had) to effect real change, doesn't exist anymore.

Don't feel bad though. Even Obama thought he could effect real change.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Anomalyst]

My shoes are too tight, and I have forgotten how to dance.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[CanHasDIY]

exactly how often is the air force accidentally spying on us?

Sorry, citizen, that's classified.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Hatta]

You act like We have a say. Wake up.

We do. Voting.

Voting exists to placate us into believing we have a say. If voting could actually change anything it would be illegal.

Do something. Write letters to your senators.

Oh yeah. They just shake in their boots when they get a letter. Have you ever actually done this and gotten anything more than a form letter that says "your concerns are irrelevant, I will vote the way my masters dictate"?

Do something, and be public about it. Perhaps I have a naive point of view of it, but it's better than rolling over and giving up. At THAT point, you have lost everything. When you've given up, then all hope is lost. America hasn't given up, not quite yet.

You have this exactly backwards. The longer we waste trying to fix the system from within, the longer we'll be stuck with it. The only thing that is going to return power to the people is if the people take the streets. Violently if necessary, our government will surely make it necessary.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[oh-dark-thirty]

I talk to many people throughout the day, and occasionally the topic turns to politics...to a person, everyone I speak to is equally disgusted with the state of the state/nation...and when I implore them to "just vote for the other guy, it doesn't matter if they are a tree stump...we need change", they almost universally agree that's not a terrible idea, and they promise to give it a shot. I know it may not amount to anything, but I'm doing my part. I write to my critters (local and national), and I try to get the word out about alternative candidates. I also use my 'dirty underwear' analogy...imagine the President as your clothing; you change them every 4 or 8 years, and are guaranteed a new set after wearing them a maximum of twice. Now imagine Congress as your underwear, shouldn't you be changing them at LEAST as often as your clothes?

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

And if you were able to read the article you would realize that the military isn't policing the citizenry and won't be policing the citizenry.

What isn't mentioned in the fear mongering story is that anyone responsible for the accidental surveillance would be court-marshaled.

The Military takes your rights very seriously, it's law enforcement that shits on them.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

Are you NUTS!!!

I don't want to be deported to Mexico, I'm Canadian!!

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would change would to should as I doubt anyone would be court-marshaled unless there is a whistle blower. There seems to be a lot of CYA going on across the board in government.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[houghi]

We do. Voting.

Should be modded +1 funny.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

We'll agree to disagree on that point then because one of the major motivations for the military is the protection of our rights. There are a lot of idealists in the military who take this kind of thing very seriously.

We have far far more to fear from law enforcement, than our military.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[cheekyjohnson]

Time and time again, the courts have ruled that if it's visible from a public (air)space, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, including from the air.

Yeah, just like the government can set up cameras everywhere in public places. I don't care what courts rule; it's nonsense.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[dwillden]

Umm there's nothing in the constitution about that. The prohibition on the military being involved in police/Law Enforcement functions is due to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978. Prior to that act the military could and occasionally was used in LE functions. Note that act does NOT apply to the National Guard as those troops belong to their respective State, not to the Federal Government.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[JaimeZX]

Thanks, Mollari.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

Ok, lets say during Katrina that the Air Force supplied drones for surveying the damage and helping to direct relief. Yes, it didn't happen, but

Lets take a step further and say that the drones recorded the police officers shooting civilians.

If that had happened then the Air Force would not have been allowed to share that information without this law.

Now remember, this is the military, not law enforcement, they have very very strict rules in regards to how they can interact with civilian life. They cannot and will not arrest civilians and even with this law they can only share information such as this under very specific conditions. Also, they are not in the business of putting civilians under surveillance, this law is for hypothetical situations that should not occur, but if they do occur there are now guidelines on how to deal with it.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[cheekyjohnson]

Is that so? The government spews such things left and right. "Oh, we'll only use this on the bad guys. Oh, don't worry, we're not going to spy on you!" I don't trust them one single bit. Why should I trust the military?

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

The military risks their lives in foreign lands for our rights, but as far as law enforcement is concerned all our rights do is put barriers in their way.

That is the primary difference.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Jeng]

Because they are idealists, its why they volunteer. They do not see us as the enemy, we are who they are trying to protect, our rights are their motivation for them to risk their lives.

Law Enforcement sees our rights as something that gets in their way. Also, law enforcement has their own drones they can spy on you with, they don't need the military for that.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[chuckinator]

DoD skunkworks concept whitepaper != functional implementation.

Anyone that has worked in any proximity to government contracting knows how much the marketing materials embellish.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[cheekyjohnson]

Because they are idealists, its why they volunteer. They do not see us as the enemy, we are who they are trying to protect, our rights are their motivation for them to risk their lives.

They don't have to see us as an enemy, and neither does the government. They just have to believe that what they're doing is "the right thing." Even those with the best of intentions can be mistaken. I'd much prefer it if they just had no powers to spy on us to begin with, and no powers to retain the data.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[Travelsonic]

That assumes, however, that privacy is only physical, which IMO is why that argument ***generally*** is / can be tenuous.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[daveschroeder]

Just because they are behind doesn't mean they cannot prioritize or start anew.

No one considers your analysis serious simply because you overlook that plain, simple fact. A backlog does not logically exclude a recent focus.

Wow...you missed the point entirely.

I'm not saying the Air Force has to make it through its entire backlog of drone data before it can begin to look at other data. I'm saying that the Air Force can't even manage the data it's collecting during wartime operations, and you think that suddenly there's going to be a new focus to spy on Americans by way of an exemption in a minimization procedure?

Seriously?

And I already addressed the predictable automation argument in the post to which you replied. It's not the technology or lack thereof that prevents government from violating the law; it's the law itself.

Similarly, because the possibility of greater abuses by another system(s) already in existence, we should overlook the abuses of a current, newer system? That's an absurd argument.

Didn't say that at all. Arguments against the use of "drones" or any other technology are simply an argument against technology...which is exactly what you lay bare later:

US military sat systems have limitations and focus that prevent them from focused information gathering and tracking. US military manned flights similar have a problem--fuel costs, manpower, feedback from the pilots

(Drones also have pilots...)

(aka evidence of abuse) of the system. These techs suck for anything more than broad searches really for one reason or the other, not to mention most military craft are, well, rather noticeable in the civilian world. Drones lack these issues entirely. You're seriously underestimating what is current done with what will be done, as well as current limitations in what isn't done, with what will be done.

Now you're making an argument based purely on the notion that it's not THE LAW which limits abuse of other technologies, but technological/cost/concealment/etc. limitations. What you're saying, essentially, is the only reason anyone working on behalf of government would do the "right thing" is because the might be seen or caught doing the "wrong thing", and that if there is less of a chance of being caught violating the law or the Constitution, then obviously they are going to do just that.

When I said "shameful and sad", it's this to which I was referring: the notion that people like you believe the default state is abuse and that our system of law alone is powerless to stop it, when in reality, it's the other way around.

A 3 month window is ridiculous and is a Constitutional violation in my book.

In your book. The fact is there are all kinds of deadlines and timetables on these sorts of things, because it takes time to do things. Given that these and other systems WILL be used for civil assistance, training, force protection, etc., and mistakes WILL happen — and no, they won't be "intentional" mistakes — what do you propose the timeline for mitigation should be? 9 minutes? When does the deadline for making a determination suddenly become "unconstitutional"?

The fact of the matter is that it's not a "Constitutional violation" unless a challenge is brought and a court says it is. Simply saying "I feel this is clearly illegal or unconstitutional!" doesn't make it so. And before you say something like "After 9/11, all the courts always side with the government anyway," that is utterly, ridiculously false. The courts have routinely sided against government (e.g., recent SCOTUS GPS decision) — you just remember when they don't.

Nearly *every* spying or police force issues where it has been said they wouldn't do, couldn't do, has been proven false since 9/11.

[Citation needed]

Note: this is rhetorical. ANY government c

Re:Yep, more of the same

[isorox]

I think it would be more effective to vote out the worst half. All the others would get the message.
If you vote out everyone then they don't know how to change.

Half of the voters in America think the worst half are Republicans.
Half of the voters in America think the worst half are the Democrats.

You're screwed as long as you have your current system.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[colinrichardday]

Wow all this paranoia about big government.

Yeah, because the US government never attempted to instill fear in Americans after 9/11. Jefferson warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Was he paranoid, too?

The US government has been reducing military budget because the war is coming to an end and our economic state doesn't allow it.

It's still 600 billion dollars. And predator drones may be cost effective.

Re:Yep, more of the same

[dcw3]

Oh yeah. They just shake in their boots when they get a letter. Have you ever actually done this and gotten anything more than a form letter that says "your concerns are irrelevant, I will vote the way my masters dictate"?

Actually, I have...more than once, but mostly with state reps and senators. Certainly, it's their staff who are doing the replies, but I'd bet that those politicians do get statistics from the staff on what they're hearing. Since so few people bother to write, I'm happy to be one of those that do, and get a disproportionate amount of attention. So, thanks, and don't write!

Re:Yep, more of the same

[uninformedLuddite]

Leaving the USA isn't free. It's very expensive.

President McCain strikes again

[Kohath]

They told me this would happen if I voted for John McCain for President. And they were right!

Re:President McCain strikes again

[Quiet_Desperation]

Would be a bad time to be a furry.

There's a good time?

Re:President McCain strikes again

[oreaq]

If McCain had prevailed the Democrats would have been an opposition against the erroding of civil liberties. I'm not convinced that a McCain preidency would really have been worse.

Well If They Want To Watch...

[jimmerz28]

I guess I need to start having (gay) sex on my deck again.

Re:Well If They Want To Watch...

[Remus Shepherd]

True story: I knew a guy who was married to his horse. Not legally, of course, but there was a ceremony and everything. He had a twelve-foot-high privacy fence around his backyard so that nobody would complain about his and his bride's consummations. Which, in Missouri in the 1980s, were perfectly legal.

Except they lived near an Air Force base...and every so often a helicopter would fly low overhead, then stop right over his property. The pilot would watch for a while before flying off. There was nothing my friend could do about it (and nothing the Air Force could do to stop him, short of a missile strike), so he resigned himself to giving a free show two or three times a week.

Curiosity is in our species' nature. If our government is given the ability to invade our privacy then they will use it, if only out of curiosity.

Re:Well If They Want To Watch...

[jimmerz28]

I wouldn't say it was "curiosity".

Re:Well If They Want To Watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd that your horse marrying friend wasn't familiar with the concept of a barn. It's a lot like the fence he had but enclosing a smaller area and with a roof.

Re:Well If They Want To Watch...

[bgarcia]

Sorry, but if you're by yourself, it doesn't count as gay.

Re: post 9/11

[MRe_nl]

Wasn't that just accidentally hitting the buildings whilst flying?

NIT

[iluvcapra]

"Spy on American Citizens for 90 days" != "retain footage of American Citizens for 90 days"

They can accidentally spy on you indefinitely, or rather, spontaneously whenever you might fall within the vantage of the camera. They can only keep the video for 90 days.

Re:NIT

[bob8766]

Yeah, this would go over really well in court:

Lawyer: So How did you obtain this footage?
Drone Operator: We accidentally left the camera equipment on when we took off from American soil
Lawyer: How many times has this happened?
Drone Operator: Several, in fact I think it happens most times when we launch
Lawyer: What disciplinary action have you received for leaving them on?
Drone Operator: None. I think I read something once that says we aren't supposed to, but out commander tells us to do it anyway

At this point it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't be a case of "accidental" espionage (Disclaimer: IANAL)

Re:NIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this would go over really well in court:

Lawyer: So How did you obtain this footage?

Drone Operator: We accidentally left the camera equipment on when we took off from American soil

Lawyer: How many times has this happened?

DOD: We cannot divulge such information for national security reasons

FTFY

Re:NIT

[arkane1234]

Thank you, that's far closer to how it'd truly be.
Terse, and quick.

Re:NIT

[lightknight]

I can't tell. Are we living under a military dictatorship?

Re:NIT

[dwillden]

Except you left out the next part of the trial.

Lawyer: So your commander ordered you to violate the Intel Oversight laws and regulations?
Drone Operator: Yes it was a standing written order issued by Commander Bob.
Lawyer: Thank you, I have nothing more for this witness.

Since in the scenario you outlined for us, the commander, whom you have ordering the camera's to be on and recording, is the one on trial for the violations, not the operator. Oh sure he could have refused to run the camera's and will get remedial training and probably lose a stripe for obeying the unlawful order. But the Intel Oversight system actually works quite well. And were this fictional commander to be issuing such orders he would be the one really on trial for violating the Intel Oversight Regs and Laws by collecting on US Persons without legal authority or mission to do so.

Okay who has the next fictional FUD story?

I had an epiphany

[i kan reed]

There's an extent to which the bill of rights can't properly be applied in the modern world, and we've addressed that by allowing certain variations of things to be allowed(e.g. High yield explosives, and chemical weapons don't count as arms for the second amendment). We should rewrite the thing and actually put into the constitution the things we think are protected and the ones we don't.

That's the only way this is getting better. And since Americans consider the constitution, and the bill of rights in particular, to be the divine word of god, we won't fix it.

We've allowed too much of the changes to our rights be by fiat instead of acknowledging them in the constitution.

Re:I had an epiphany

[Tanktalus]

There's an extent to which the bill of rights can't properly be applied in the modern world, and we've addressed that by allowing certain variations of things to be allowed(e.g. High yield explosives, and chemical weapons don't count as arms for the second amendment). We should rewrite the thing and actually put into the constitution the things we think are protected and the ones we don't.

It sounds like what you're saying is that if judges were given less lattitude to interpret things (you know, actually judging based on the constitution and laws as written), we'd find reason to fix those things. So, if judges were to claim that high yield explosives and chemical weapons were "arms" since they are used as such, overturning all sorts of laws in the process, the actual constitution would be open for update on a regular basis again?

Sounds bloody. And sounds like a great idea. Except that we're just as prone to end up with a constitution that does not protect citizens' attempts to protect themselves both from each other and from the government.

Re:I had an epiphany

[the eric conspiracy]

> We should rewrite the thing

Are you kidding? Look at the state of American politics today. Do you REALLY think what you would get would be an improvement?

> to be the divine word of god

The fact is since 1787 every other democracy has been cribbing bits from it. None have made any real improvements.

Re:I had an epiphany

[hierofalcon]

The founding fathers would have allowed the citizens to have Abrams tanks, F22 Raptors, or other modern weapons of war fully fueled and armed, parked at their farm or street if such technology had been available. They would have been fine with high yield explosives and any other weapons of war that were likely to be used against them by an enemy. Few could afford them today, but being permitted to have them was their clear intent. That's why they added the second amendment. Since a "militia" might be needed at any time to oppose foreign enemies or their own government (that inconvenient revolutionary war against their British government thing everyone forgets about in this day and age), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

They'd just fought that wonderful war that led to the creation of our country. Think they would have been successful if they were armed with bow and arrows and shotguns and the British had modern weapons as the hunting weapons only crowd would mandate today? Of course not. They wanted their citizens to be fully armed with modern weapons to keep the government in place and to be able to repel any invasion that might come up.

Our creation of standing military forces wasn't in the plan, but even so, only might protect us against outside forces and not against the government itself. That is if they aren't all off on some foreign military base or doing some peace forcing action in a foreign country when the home turf gets attacked.

Re:I had an epiphany

[Mindcontrolled]

Ok guys, let's suggest a crowd funding project - how about we all pool our beer money and buy a small third world nation to hand over to the libertarians, right-to-bear-arm-nutters and all the other lovely people posting their brainfarts around here. Only condition - we get drone overflight rights to record a livestream of the hilarity than shall certainly ensue.

Re:I had an epiphany

[hierofalcon]

All I'm saying is the people who worded the 2nd amendment had a different point of view than most do today. Saying they just wanted to be allowed to hunt or defend their own homes against home invaders is incorrect, even if you don't like the 21st century equivalent to their situation. The cost of the vast majority of the weapons in use today to say nothing of ammunition for them means you don't have to worry about your derogatory list of people anyway because most couldn't justify the cost of a simple gun with today's tight home budgets. But the founding fathers were talking about "arms" as in "go to war" arms that a militia would use and not a cheap bought on the street gun.

Re:I had an epiphany

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You seem to woefully underestimate the effectiveness of a modern hunting firearm. The cartridges they use are easily as powerful or more so than most military small arms (.30-06, .300 Win Mag, .270, .30-30, etc compared to standard US military 5.56x45) add in that most hunting rifles are more accurate than military firearms and that semi-automatic hunting rifles are fairly common (although bolt action is still probably more prevalent). Granted they wouldn't do much against tanks or aircraft, but look at the havoc that the Afghans and Iraqis wreaked against the US troops using AK-47's, which shoot the 7.62x39 cartridge that is a very effective hunting round and comparable to a .30-30 and much less powerful than a .30-06. The use of hunting weapons would also be fairly effective in that it would pin down troops as they would be most effective filling the role of a sniper much like what was done in WWII.

Re:I had an epiphany

[Hatta]

There's an extent to which the bill of rights can't properly be applied in the modern world

No. The bill of rights can apply just fine to the modern world. They have simply chosen not to adhere to it.

Re:I had an epiphany

[lightknight]

Yes. They were relatively wealthy, had played ambassador / general / insurrectionist recently, and had just finished a particularly horrible war; and their idea of dealing with unfaithful governments was to burn them down to the ground. It's no wonder that they wanted the citizens to never feel threatened by their new government; and as a nice bonus, ensuring the populace was equipped with the latest weaponry, ostensibly purchased by themselves, meant that protecting the country was the responsibility of each of its citizens. Invading a country where the military is located on bases which might as well be painted with bulls-eyes, and the citizenry is defanged, is relatively easy. Invading a country where you have more to fear from the citizenry than the military is an almost impossible venture.

Re:I had an epiphany

[hierofalcon]

I don't underestimate them at all, and the hunters among us tend to be decent shots which is a boon in sniper actions that you have mentioned.

Still, as the war in the Middle East (as opposed to Afghanistan) proved, air and sea superiority can't be matched. There was a great lot of resistance, but a large number of enemy troops and equipment like tanks were simply wiped out in initial bombing attacks. If our government hadn't been worried about limiting civilian losses, we could have gone after cities as well and probably eliminated a certain amount of the building to building street fighting that killed many of our troops. Guerrilla warfare in the streets or in the mountains of Afghanistan is hard to stamp out. Still, to look back in history, the Russians weren't doing a bad job in Afghanistan till we started providing surface to air missiles to the guerrilla forces to combat their helicopters. Eventually, with the shift in balance of power, they decided it wasn't worth it anymore and pulled out. Imagine what the Middle East wars would have been like if our troops were fighting intact armies with a C and C structure that hadn't been destroyed by cruise missiles.

The usefulness of sea and air power could be said to have been decisive in WWII as well. The Navy protected the convoys of materiel that went from America to the rest of the world. The European war was largely won in the air by bombing German supply lines and factories to pieces. In the Pacific theater, using the Navy and Army Air Corp to leapfrog around enemy strong holds was likewise decisive - to say nothing of the strikes on Japan once in range. Stupidity in the Axis power structure from the top down that kept running high priority trains full of people bound for concentration camps didn't help them either, of course, to say nothing of killing many people who were running companies or designing and building things solely because of race or religion or sexual preference. Fighting on multiple fronts when not necessary before finishing the first front and unwarranted optimism also played a part in Axis failures. Political mistakes like letting Japan start fighting the US without also attacking Russia didn't help either. But the actual equipment of the German forces was largely superior to what we were throwing at them. They just couldn't build them fast enough or keep them supplied with parts, ammunition, or petrol. We covered them up with equipment produced in factories that were safe from attack.

Before I get flamed, I know that in all cases, the boots on the ground had to do the final fighting and mopping up and without them, the Air Corp and Navy couldn't have done the job alone. But if it wasn't for those two, the work of the soldiers fighting through Africa, Europe and Asia (or the Middle East and Afghanistan today) would have been much more difficult. I know that's a gross simplification, but it does take more than just small arms - even really good hunting rifles - to repel a modern army that is attacking you. You may slow them down. You may prevent them from completely dominating you. But you aren't likely to drive them out solely with small arms.

Re:I had an epiphany

[Kjella]

The founding fathers would have allowed the citizens to have Abrams tanks, F22 Raptors, or other modern weapons of war fully fueled and armed, parked at their farm or street if such technology had been available.

They had cannons in the 18th century, and no it's not really clear whether the amendment was meant to cover those or just arms you can bear. Apparently there's no writings about the amendment from that period that discusses private ownership of cannons, we know a few private merchant ships had them but that they were legal doesn't imply they're constitutionally guaranteed. What we do know is that they were afraid of the general disarmament of the population but there's nothing that clearly backs up your interpretation.

Re:I had an epiphany

[hierofalcon]

Just common sense. And clearly, the number of cannon in use was not high in proportion to the number of muskets, so even then it wasn't like they expected everyone to have a cannon too - just that I suspect that they wouldn't have been in as big a panic about it if the people who knew how to use them had one, unlike today. Cost alone would have made them prohibitive to the majority, just like modern big weapons today. Course there was a lot more common sense around then. Not so much today on so many varied levels - and that comment wasn't directed anywhere near you so please don't take offense.

What is the point...

[wisnoskij]

of a spy drone that does not have the any spy equipment on and in which you cannot retain some of the footage?

I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[StevenMaurer]

If I'm in a public setting, I can pull out my camera and take a picture, "spying" on anything in its viewfinder. This is 100% legal. I can also "spy" by taking a photo out of an airplane. Police can do this as well. Out west, we have airplanes which monitor traffic to see if you are vastly exceeding the speed limit, being a "spy" to see how fast you are driving. They even post signs that they do this.

It isn't strange that our military also has the authority to take footage. What is strange, and wonderful, is that our military removes this footage after 90 days. I have many pictures of all sorts of places, with images of fellow tourists accidentally being "spied" on in them. I am keeping these photos forever.

(Note: YMMV. Certain conservative State legislatures are trying to make it illegal to record police, so as to allow the police to cover up any of their criminal acts; however I am confidant that these laws are destined to eventually be fully overturned by the courts.)

I fail to see how this is in any way a terrible thing. The outside is a public setting. Always has been.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[garcia]

Because the military is not supposed to take action on citizens. We have other enforcement divisions tasked with that sort of thing.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I'm in a public setting, I can pull out my camera and take a picture, "spying" on anything in its viewfinder."

Try that outside an oil refinery and see what happens.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[Mousit]

.... It isn't strange that our military also has the authority to take footage. ....

The reason why it's a notable thing is because the military, in fact, doesn't have the authority to take footage. Right at the top of the article (but this is Slashdot, so no one read it) it's pointed out that the military, like the CIA, is not supposed to perform surveillance of citizens on domestic soil.

They're using weasel-words to try and loophole around that block, and it's this type of skirting action that should always be made public and pushed against. Checks and balances, watching the watchers, that sort of thing.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[Jeng]

And what makes you think the Air Force is going to come to your door and arrest you?

They would just hand the information to which ever law enforcement agency has jurisdiction and you would go though the regular courts.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[mally_wally]

We should just issue those sleep-time eye-covers for all military personnel that are on US soil so they don't accidentally see anything related to US citizens while here and talk about it within earshot of any superiors or report it. We should also confiscate all photo-recording equipment of families that might have military personnel, as they might see something that was taken outside by one of their family members.

Problem solved!

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[thoth]

Checks and balances, watching the watchers, that sort of thing.

The very fact this sort of thing is even public information or acknowledged indicates the check and balances system is working, at some level.
You think the Russian or Chinese militaries have to deal with these sorts of questions?

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[Mousit]

That was kind of my point, yes. The actual act of getting this disclosed is part of the process of checks and balances, not merely an indicator of it. It wasn't like the Air Force themselves made big of it; a professional had to pour through the reams of documentation and unearth it. Then they had to get it disseminated to the public. And now it can be (in my opinion, rightfully should be) contested.

All of that has to happen before checks and balances is working.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[phrackthat]

(Note: YMMV. Certain conservative State legislatures are trying to make it illegal to record police, so as to allow the police to cover up any of their criminal acts; however I am confidant that these laws are destined to eventually be fully overturned by the courts.)

Oh, you mean those notoriously conservative state legislatures in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts? Only two of the twelve states that require two-party consent for recording are "conservative" and those that specifically make it illegal to record cops are all deeply blue. Sorry to break it to you, but conservatives are not particularly trusting of government, it's your wonderful liberal legislatures that try to empower cops to keep people in line.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[lightknight]

If I work for a bank, am trusted with safeguarding the contents of its vault, but open the door to the first thief who comes along, am I complicit with the crime?

The US Air Force is charged with protecting the rights and liberties of the people; they are beholden to the Constitution before they are beholden to the President. As such, if the Air Force is found to, by intent or neglect of duties, allow for its own resources to be used against the people, is it not acting against its sworn duty?

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[lightknight]

And according to the Supreme Court Justices, a citizen has the right to privacy in their own home.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[dwillden]

The only documentation the "professional" had to dig through was EO 12333, and maybe the Airforce Regulation that implements the EO. This was not some amazing discovery. It's a lazy reporter trying to make standing legal policies sound like they are pointing to something evil.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[dwillden]

The key there is that they are not "Supposed" to. And the military really does try to not do so. This was not always the case, but after the intelligence abuses of the 60's and 70's strict rules and procedures were put in place to limit and control any and all collection on US Persons. The base law for the prohibition on military involvement is found in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. And while it does strongly restrict the militaries ability to function in LEO roles, it is not a blanket or total ban. So it can even be authorized (though not easy and not likely to happen), if the legal powers that be determine there is a mission for collection that only the military can fulfill. Read about the Act and how it works here.

Further specific limitations were put in place by law and by Executive Order in the late 70's and early 80's. And was specifically codified into set strict rules in Executive Order 12333 as first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981

All this article really says is that the Intel oversight provisions are in place and are being applied to drones as well. As they should be. If the drone flights record anything while flying over US territory they are allowed to retain it up to 90 days in order to determine if there is anything that falls within mission on the tapes. If not then it must be deleted. In fact if they don't have mission to collect the info they cannot legally pass it to the FBI or any other law enforcement agency. If it doesn't fall within the guidelines of their mission scope it must be tossed. To pass it to civilian LEO's without mission is a violation of Posse Comitatus and the Intel Oversight laws and regs. As such an action is considered the same as if the Air Force were directly conducting the law enforcement actions.

All the fear mongering and conspiracy theorizing going on here is moot. The Air Force has 90 days to review the media to determine if what was recorded meets mission. If not it gets tossed, regardless of whether or not the FBI, DEA, EPA, BATF, DHS, NRA, RIAA, MPAA or any other agency thinks, wants, or could do with the info.

But what if they do somehow catch usable footage of Al-qaeda prepping the next big attack? Even if all the members of that cell are US persons, the fact that they are engaged in terrorism does put the collected info inside standing mission. The information can then be analyzed, and reported, but must include annotation that US Persons were collected on, and a brief explanation of which of the limited scope of collectible activities the US Persons were involved in that authorized the retention and reporting of the info. That information can then be passed to the FBI to act on.

Re:I can accidentally "spy" with a camera too

[codegen]

The outside is a public setting. Always has been.

You can't lift the camera to take a picture over a 7 foot fence. There is an expectation of privacy in a fenced-in backyard. A drone overhead is looking inside the fence.

While you are correct about anything that can normally be seen from a public space (And I fully support the recording of police in a public place), a UAV sees many things that are not normally seen from a public space.

Another Wired Non-story

[dwillden]

This not some amazing new discovery. It's called Intel Oversight. All Military intelligence under under these same rules. We are allowed to collect only in accordance with an assigned mission. Said mission cannot be to simply go out and watch of follow or collect on random or even specific citizens. What is allowed is if during authorized collection we come across information about a possible US citizen we are allowed 90 days to review to determine if A: The person is indeed a US Person (legal status and yes US Corporations qualify and did before the famous court ruling that the /. crowd hates so much). And if so B: is there reason to collect and retain the info. This is usually a no but there are certain categories of activities that would allow collection to go forward and the information to be retained in official intelligence reporting.
Now about applicability. In the US the military is required to assume, lacking other information to the contrary, that anyone we run across is a US Person and thus most likely cannot be collected on. So don't worry, they aren't going to start flying "accidently" across the states filming your backyard activities. We'll leave that to the Jackbooted thugs in the FBI and local PD's. Outside the US the view shifts 180 degrees and we are to assume, again until we get some evidence to the contrary, that any individual we run across is NOT a US Person. But should we collect info on someone and they then turn out to be a US person, we are again given the 90 Window to determine if they are in fact a US Person, and if they are engaged in one of the legally specified activities that allow or even mandate collection and reporting on them. Some examples of these categories would be anyone engaged in espionage for a foreign power, anyone actively involved with a declared terrorist group. (not just someone we think "looks like a terrorist."

And regardless of whether they are involved in collectible activities or not any and all collection on US Persons is reported not just up the military channels but also the DoJ and the CIA. People do lose rank and intelligence positions over violation of the Intel Oversight rules. All military intelligence personnel are briefed on Intel Oversight at least annually.

The poster of this story really has no idea what he's talking about. This is a non-story and it's really nothing new. And once again Wired tries to write about the Intelligence community possibly doing wrong but just proves how little their reporters actually understand things.

But I'm sure the /. geniuses will let me know how wrong I am, even though they have zero experience with this realm.

Re:Another Wired Non-story

[Scarred Intellect]

I didn't read your comment, just your subject: Another Wired Non-story

I like it. I wrote this for a college assignment. Probably inaccurate, but I wanted to see what I could get away with in the course:

Assignment: 1. The death of the web http://www.onthemedia.org/2010/aug/20/the-death-of-the-web/ Summarize the directions that commercial use of technology is moving to provide content, away from the open, free web.

I followed the link to http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/

The article focuses on users' widespread use of specific and specialized apps to retrieve internet content and dramatizes the difference between “web” and “internet.” This latter distinction is, in my opinion, entirely incorrect, as the world wide web, though often now not being used by a browser, is still a world wide web in that it is a web of networks that covers the world; much like the internet is a larger network connecting smaller networks. There is no difference between “web” and “internet.”

The article makes a big deal out of the fact that most data transmitted over the internet is no longer “the web” which it declares as HTML and data seen in web browsers, but, typical of Wired, it takes a naive point of view and understanding of root concepts and technology (Example: first paragraph; almost all of those are NOT necessarily apps, but can in fact be checked from a web browser, and it does not indicate any sort of decline of the web). In my opinion, people don't generally understand technology and try to dramatize what is new in order to impress others with their cutting edge knowledge; Wired epitomizes this.

Commercial use of technology, in the scope of this article/assignment, is moving content to dedicated apps/services whereas in the past it used to be up to the user to find such things via a web browser. Services such as Netflix, games such as World of Warcraft, specific apps to check specific services such as Facebook and WSJ, media streaming via Flash or otherwise embedded formats are taking away from what the author considers to be the open web, and bringing specialized data to specialized apps that are specifically requested by users. This is in comparison to the “open web” where a user used a non-specific app (web browser) to find the content they sought. The only real difference is ease of use; if a user wants to only check Facebook (on a mobile device, the article often leaves this subtle yet significant distinction out), they need only to launch the Facebook app, which has much less overhead than a full web browser which allows it to launch quicker, saving them the time of the full web browser launch, and navigating to Facebok; Bam! It's already up. It's like having a different browser shortcut, each with it's own homepage to whichever service the user is seeking.

But it is still an open and free web. There are options that simplify the enormity of the web, and the largest example of this is Apple and the Walled Garden analogy: their iPhone/iPad model is that you have THEIR hardware using THEIR software or software THEY approve for YOUR web-browsing experience, limiting the openness and liberty of the world wide web in return for simplicity for the user. Will this trend continue? Yes. Is it the death of the internet, or web? Absolutely not. People still go home and check E-mail and research on the web using old-fashioned web browsers, not their iPhones or iPads. The web is not dead, it is simply more widespread and used in more and different ways than in years past.

Re:Another Wired Non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Quit lowering the average IQ of AC posts.

I Hear Thundering Hooves.

[jklovanc]

Let loose the tin hat brigade

Re:The military can do whatever it wants

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that's a "people really do go to jail for that" level felony. The article also deliberately evades the rest of the intel oversight mechanisms. Waht you should realize is that, in an effort to prevent any problems, we are required, by federal law, to purge all stored imagery from the US within 90 days. Yes, that does mean disk caches, and there's quite a bit of discussion about whether swap files need to be deliberately wiped.

Compared to Domesic Law Enforcement use...

[Lashat]

this is trivial and a non-issue. Why "accidently' leave the camera on and go off charter when this occurs
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/21/2037251/domestic-surveillance-drones-on-the-rise

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/01/24/0410221/domestic-use-of-aerial-drones-by-law-enforcement

Even in UK.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/26/1645232/uk-police-plan-to-use-military-style-spy-drones

Let me know when I can buy one at Toys R Us.

The Air Force doesn't bother me.

[seanzig]

I really don't see them passing on their incidental footage to anyone else, such as Homeland Security, local law enforcement, etc. Despite what the conspiracy theorists will say, these government agencies aren't exactly known for working well together. There's already too much data for national security analysts to process to add what little bits and pieces the USAF might pick up in the course of their regular work.

The 2nd-to-last paragraph of the article was more bothersome for me - the idea of local law enforcement flying drones around a city.

Re:The Air Force doesn't bother me.

[0123456]

I really don't see them passing on their incidental footage to anyone else, such as Homeland Security, local law enforcement, etc.

Indeed not. When their face recognition tells them that there's a 90% change that you're Wanted Terrorist #1 they'll just launch a missile at you.

Re:The Air Force doesn't bother me.

[dwillden]

The thing about this non-issue is that they can't just pass the incidental footage. That 90 day window is to give them time to determine if what was caught on tape meets their collection mission. If not it gets tossed. Not passed to other agencies, tossed in to the shredder/erased. Under the Intel Oversight Provisions implemented under EO 12333 if it doesn't meet mission collection, and it involves US Persons (and all persons within the boundaries of the US are assumed to be US Persons, until proven otherwise) then it cannot be retained, and it cannot be passed to other civilian agencies. If it does meet mission, then it can be passed but only with careful documentation of how it meets mission, and how the US Persons Identified are involved in the actions that qualify the collection as meeting mission.

So your pot grow in the back yard is safe from Air Force drones. They are prohibited from sharing that information as it does not meet their mission and thus is not retainable or passable information. Now when a sharp eyed analyst realizes you are using a pot grow in the back yard to hide the AA missile launcher you have aimed at the local International Airport. Then they can retain and pass, because any threat to air-travel is within their mission.

Possible scenario

[jklovanc]

Say a military drone is tasked with border security. On the way to the border it is much safer if the pilot can see where he is going so has the cameras turned on. He happens to see a crime going on. What should the pilot do? Ignore it as he is not supposed to be watching Americans or report it and pass the recording on to the police?
All video from a drone is saved. All this is doing is clarifying that video taken in the US must be destroyed after 90 days. Why 90 days? Maybe because it gives time for police to request the video if they are investigating crime that might have been recorded by the drone.

Re:Possible scenario

[deadweight]

I fly around, take pictures of things, and put them on my website. There is NO rule I know of saying I can't fly over your house and take photos of it and keep them forever.

Re:Possible scenario

[dwillden]

The 90 days is time to determine if the footage collected any info that meets the collection mission of the flight. This collection mission is both the immediate mission of the flight as well as several standing missions (terrorism, threats to aviation safety, etc...) But if it doesn't meet that mission, the footage must and will be destroyed. It cannot be passed to another agency if the collection mission did not contain that type of activity.

So your scenario of a crime. If it's just a random run of the mill crime, say a murder or a massive pot grow, it doesn't meet mission and thus must be destroyed, not passed to another agency. If it doesn't meet mission it can't be collected, if it can't be collected then it can't be reported (passed to other agencies) and must be destroyed.

Basically the Military Intel Community tries to look at it like this, if we can't collect it because it didn't meet mission, then it didn't happen because we didn't write it down(report it).

The Law enforcement community is going to have to find their own evidence because the Air Force is prohibited from sharing the information that didn't meet mission.

Re:Possible scenario

[jklovanc]

You need to read the following paragraphs of the publication

9.5. Distribution of Domestic Imagery. Distribution of domestic imagery to parties other than those identified in the approved PUM, DIR or MFR is prohibited, unless the recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function requiring it IAW paragraph 11.4. Unless otherwise approved, domestic imagery must be withheld from all general access database systems (e.g., Intelink).
9.6. Navigational/Target Training activities.
9.6.1. Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers.
9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.
11.4. Dissemination. US person information in the possession of an Air Force intelligence component may be disseminated pursuant to law, a court order, or IAW the following criteria:
11.4.2. The recipient is reasonably believed to have a need to receive such information for the performance of a lawful governmental function and is:
11.4.2.2. A law enforcement entity of federal, state or local government, and the information may indicate involvement in activities that may violate laws that the recipient is responsible to enforce.

As long as the survailance is not targeted at an individual or their property the footage can be passed on to law enforcement.

Re:Possible scenario

[dwillden]

Only when expressly approved by the SecDef. as per your cited 9.6.2

9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.

Only if the collection is expressly approved by the SecDef can the collected footage be passed to Civil Law enforcement agencies. And they are then fully responsible for maintaining and more importantly acting on the info. My point still stands, if it doesn't meet mission it will NOT be passed on, unless they've requested SecDef approval in advance.

Re:Possible scenario

[jklovanc]

You missed a very important point. SecDef must approve "surveillance on specifically identified US persons". That means that unless the SecDef approves the Military can not follow and record Joe Bloggins of 123 Fourth St, Tempe Arizona. That would be surveillance on an identified US person. You also missed the "Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent."

And they are then fully responsible for maintaining and more importantly acting on the info.

Wrong, "Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected." The Military does not maintain the info gathered under SecDef authority; civil law enforcement agencies do.

they are then fully responsible for maintaining and more importantly acting on the info.

Wrong again; "A law enforcement entity of federal, state or local government, and the information may indicate involvement in activities that may violate laws that the recipient is responsible to enforce.". So the recording can be passed to local law enforcement so they can enforce those laws "that the recipient is responsible to enforce".

Again, SecDef only gets involved if there is a "specifically identified US person". That is completely different than "some person killing someone else" and the person is not specifically identifiable.

I'm not paying for that...

[3seas]

...re: Taxes... I'd like to know who is.

So THAT'S...

[jamstar7]

... where all those Hollywood sex tapes come from.

Seriously, guys, you need to zoom in once in awhile and do a better editing job before dumping this stuff on the internet. Your production values are slipping...

Your comment is ironic...

[daveschroeder]

...considering that the reason that mitigation and minimization procedures exist in the first place is to address and prevent abuse, or accidental or improper collection, not encourage it.

I would also point out that the US has manned aircraft which fly over the US all the time, many with sophisticated ISR capabilities — and which have similar sets of processes to prevent improper uses.

I would also point out that the military and intelligence agencies like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency aid law enforcement and civil authorities all the time, e.g., for things like natural disasters and wildfires — this includes planes, space assets, and yes, even drones.

The reason the procedures and processes discussed in this article exist in the first place is precisely to prevent unauthorized or improper use.
The idea isn't to say, hey, everything is an "accident", so we will look at anything, all the time (as some people here will no doubt believe). The idea is that IF data on US Persons is obtained improperly, it should be deleted — unless it involves "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities."

In DOD-speak, INTERNATIONAL narcotics and terrorism means something very specific. It doesn't mean the Air Force or anyone else is going to blanket the US with drones, and use provisions designed to PREVENT improper activities as an excuse to "accidentally" spy on Americans.

That people believe this is somehow a secret plot designed to let the Air Force, of all things, spy on Americans for no reason, is a very sad thing to me. This may come as a surprise to you, but many in the US military and the government actually take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and to the people of the United States seriously.

If your next question is, "If they take it seriously, they wouldn't be letting this happen!!" I would direct you to re-read my post more carefully.

what can we do to mess up drones from the ground?

[mapkinase]

Now the question is: what can we do to mess up those drones from the ground?

It's (maybe) innocuous now....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter? The amount of effort required to look into ONE person in footage is huge. Stop being so paranoid everyone. If they looked at footage of me they would see a guy walking down the street..WOW. sometimes I think people are concerned over things like this far to much. Just live your life and chill out!

It's (maybe) innocuous now but in the future it will be abused somehow. Slippery slope and all that - just look at the TSA.

And the other thing is this: the military or the rest of the Government should NOT be spying on American citizens - period. WTF, dude!

Here we (as a people) are saying "Oh, it's not THAT bad." whenever our Government tramples on our civil liberites. And then they take a little more. And we say again, "It's not THAT bad." and they take even more.

Add in the Right Wingers who think Civil Liberties are pinko hippy Liberal values and you have this water covered icy slipery slope headed towards an oppresive society.

All you need is one grunt (a guy with a badge and gun) to dislike you for whatever reason and your life is Hell.

And it gets worse higher up. It really disgusts me that the FBI treated Martin Luther King as a goddamn terrorist. They watched him, they kept a dossier on him, they bugged his phones, and god knows what else - all because he was fighting INJUSTICE in our society. Sure he committed some misdemeanors in his protests, but to be treated and monitored that way? I DON'T THINK SO.

That's the mentality of the grunts (people with badges and guns) - you're a criminal if they don't like you.

And you have no problem with this monitoring?

Shame on you.

Re:It's (maybe) innocuous now....

[Sperbels]

And it gets worse higher up. It really disgusts me that the FBI treated Martin Luther King as a goddamn terrorist. They watched him, they kept a dossier on him, they bugged his phones, and god knows what else - all because he was fighting INJUSTICE in our society. Sure he committed some misdemeanors in his protests, but to be treated and monitored that way?

That's not all that surprising. He was very influential with a huge oppressed population that could have easily started a revolution. Watching him closely was only prudent. It was a no brainer. Not that I'm defending the government, but if you have any instinct for self preservation, you watch out for potential civil uprising and try to prevent them...and there was a massive potential there.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The concern isn't that they can catch you doing something. The concern is, unlawful tracking is against the law. I'm pretty sure it falls under Amendment 4, requiring any type of tracking to be covered by a warrant.

My concern is, the US military has no operational jurisdiction inside US borders except in designated areas (bases). Only the National Guard, which are state operated militia, can operate within the US border. Accidentally recording swaths of land outside of their jurisdiction is a clear violation and should have some form of punishment for the guy who accidentally hits the record button (I'm sure it's a hell of a lot more complicated than just one guy and one button).

Is this dangerous?

[srussia]

N/T

Re:really?

[KhabaLox]

The amount of effort required to look into ONE person in footage is huge.

Which is why facial recognition software is so popular. It's not hard to imagine that technology being coupled with other technologies and AI to make it possible for them to have computers sift through all that data for the juicy bits (which could be forwarded on to a human op for final review).

Re: post 9/11

[Githaron]

I doubt that is true but at least China is honest about their policies and intentions.

Re:Excuse me, Mr. President..

[arkane1234]

Easy answer, he's not ordering this.
He had as much to do with this as Manuel Noriega had to do with a taco stand in Tijuana.

Oaths

[ThatsNotPudding]

I assume every person who joins the US military still has to swear an oath with a bit about 'protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic... immediately following that, are they then ordered to ignore it, or do they do that all on their own?

Maybe the brass then just launch into the fate of Bradley Manning as a teachable moment...

Re:really?

[element-o.p.]

First, a drone can also capture footage of you in your yard, behind the eight foot high privacy fence that you thought would keep prying eyes out. At least if they were spying on you from an airplane, you'd have a good chance of seeing and/or hearing the airplane as it approached. With a drone...not so much. Second, as far as the average American goes, you are right. They aren't going to follow all 300 million or so of us 24x7 in the hopes of finding something juicy. However, if they have a *reason* to be interested in you -- and keep in mind, that does not necessarily mean "if you are a bad guy"* -- then it might be worth their time and effort to sift through the footage looking for something useful.

*A couple of tin-foil-hat ideas, right off the top of my head:
1) a well-known activist: they follow you and collect information on where you go, who you meet, and then harass the people you have been seen associating with, or perhaps just add them to a list of "suspicious" people for more investigation.
2) a senator or representative who isn't friendly to DoD budget requests: again, they follow you and look for things (prostitution, drugs, etc.) that they can use to blackmail you into voting for a better budget.

At what point is "accidental" spying kiddie porn?

[tekrat]

Hey, I can spy on my neighbors to make sure they aren't terrorists either. But at some point, it's concluded that I'm a peeping tom, and I go to jail.

Who is watching our watchers to make sure this isn't some very expensive kiddie porn ring, paid for with our tax dollars?

How long before nude sunbathers show up on 4chan, posted videos from drones?

Re:really?

[CanHasDIY]

Does it really matter? The amount of effort required to look into ONE person in footage is huge. Stop being so paranoid everyone. If they looked at footage of me they would see a guy walking down the street..WOW. sometimes I think people are concerned over things like this far to much. Just live your life and chill out!

Yea, it's not like there's advanced recognition software they could be using; nor does the military ever, I dunno, mistake cameras for guns and blow away innocent journalists.

Ignorance is Strength

The Military Oath

[CanHasDIY]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

That's in order of importance, ladies and gents; as the Fourth Amendment is part of the Constitution, our troops have a sworn duty to protect our right to be free from search (read: surveillance) first and foremost, regardless of who gave the order.

Re:really?

[lightknight]

Yes, the effort is great; however, when it comes to court cases, the DA is typically willing to do whatever it takes to convict someone, even if his / her methods might be considered somewhat extra-legal. As such, it's not a bad idea to deal with this problem before it becomes a common occurrence.

We aren't leaving, bro.

[shiftless]

The Ron Paul Revolution is well underway.

You nailed it.

[shiftless]

Basically, the GP is a can't-do whiner who will succeed in accomplishing nothing with his life, until the moment real men with balls and testosterone save him, or he dies clueless and screaming in the process.

World War 3 is nigh....and the grinder is gonna tear him up. Gotta be hard to survive what's coming next.

Re:soo..

[lightknight]

The old ways are the best ways, right?

Re: post 9/11

[RogueLeaderX]

Have you compared the Chinese constitution to the actions of their government?

You should check out http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html - specifically "CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS"

Accidental?

[InspectorGadget1964]

Hmmm, I better cancel my plans to visit the US. After some accidental spying, there could be an accidental rendition to Afghanistan, accidental torture, accidental incarceration in Guantanamo bay or even accidental death....

What?

[DrChandra]

Where did we begin to think we have a right to not be filmed when we are out in public? Take the Air Force out of the equation, and there is no issue here. A cop with a dash-cam gets a lot closer than any drone can, and he can film you legally and collect evidence without engaging any Posse Comitatus issues. Besides, any reasonably competent defense attorney could get military-sourced surveillance evidence thrown out. Move along. Nothing to see here.