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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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: 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

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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: 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"