Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Admits To Domestic Surveillance Drone Use

Posted by Soulskill on from the seeds-of-the-panopticon dept.

An anonymous reader writes "At a hearing today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI director Robert Mueller confirmed the agency is using unmanned drones for surveillance within the U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley asked, 'Does the FBI own or currently use drones and for what purpose?' Mueller replied, 'Yes, for surveillance.' Grassley then asked, 'Does the FBI use drones for surveillance on U.S. soil?' Mueller said, 'Yes, in a very, very minimal way, and seldom.' With regard to restricting the use of drones to protect citizens' privacy, Mueller said, 'It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road.' According to article, 'Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight.'"

11 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. FBI also admits . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....they have been unable to locate his body with all those drones they've been using.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-19/drones-are-used-domestic-surveillance-fbi-director-admits

  2. Why not? by OptimalCynic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

    1. Re:Why not? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why shouldn't they use drones? They use surveillance helicopters. This is just another method of doing the same thing.

      Presumably because it's a markedly cheaper, easier, and quieter method of doing the same thing: Given the.. er... 'robust' state of law enforcement oversight, your major protection from any given investigative method is that it's a pain in the ass and/or expensive, and you aren't worth the effort. Reduce the effort, and you increase the number of people who are worth the effort.

    2. Re:Why not? by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      let me put on my tin foil hat for a second here

      what happens when they can develop swarming nanobot flying insects with cameras and microphones on them that dont need to charge and are attracted to noise. always swarming above peoples heads and fully autonomous.

      let me take off the tin foil here. now this is clearly pushing it but if we say that drones are ok then it is possible - nay probable that they will work on something along the lines of my tinhattary.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Why not? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but where does the slippery slope lead to? It's an airborne camera - either you allow them or you don't.

      It's an airborne wide-spectrum camera, sometimes with parabolic and laser microphones.

      People don't tend to have an issue with the helicopters because they're big, noisy, expensive, and take a number of people to operate. Thus, you're only going to deploy them when it's really necessary, and everyone in the area knows it's deployed. Compare that to drones, where you don't know how many there are, where they are, how much information they're gathering, who they're gathering it for, etc.

      We haven't even got to the questions yet of the legality of knocking a drone out of the air -- we know the rules for helicopters.

      Basically, there's a lot of "undefined" areas surrounding how drones integrate with our current society, and as such, there are a lot of potentials for abuse based on those gaps.

  3. De-bullshitted translation by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road.'

    Translation: We do whatever the fuck we want with them. Fuck the Constitution

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  4. Before some wise guy says it by freeweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It does not matter whether its a suprise to you or not. The point is to be outraged by people snooping on you without your knowledge. Thats very VERY creepy don't you think?

    If not, then I guess you won't mind me coming over to your house, climbing a ladder and peeping through your bedroom window, right?

    Please think about the ramifications of letting this kind of thing happen without any oversight. this is not the government being stupid. It is a governemt that wants to have ever more control over your everyday life. Do you want that? Think real hard now please. Because I can't name one single authority in history that has gained even half of the control the US government has, without it turning VERY NASTY!

  5. What oversight? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Dianne Feinstein, who is also chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said the issue of drones worried her far more than telephone and internet surveillance, which she believes are subject to sufficient legal oversight.'"

    What oversight? Maybe she is in the inner circle that knows what is going on with the NSA but that is hardly what I would call oversight. A (mostly) secret program with secret directives overseen by a secret court with secret findings is not what I consider adequate oversight. There is no means by which the public will ever be informed of the findings of the surveillance and thus there is no possible way for the public to know if their rights are being compromised or if laws are being broken.

    With regard to restricting the use of drones to protect citizens' privacy, Mueller said, 'It is still in nascent stages but it is worthy of debate and legislation down the road.'

    Meaning the FBI is doing whatever they feel like until someone tells them to cut it out. Apparently the FBI thinks oversight means spying on us from the sky.

  6. Where do I expect privacy? by Intropy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    See, this drone thing doesn't really bother me. When I'm out and about I expect my actions to be public. If a drone is monitoring a private residence or business or following someone to one I think a warrant ought to be required (subject to the normal hot pursuit exceptions). But if you're monitoring some public area, no big deal. The internet and telephone surveillance on the other hand is a complete invasion of an area where I expect privacy and am guaranteed it by the constitution.

  7. Times, they are a changin by Guru80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It wasn't very long ago that all this massive spying on U.S. citizens would have caused an outrage and demonstrations of epic proportions....now I see all these "so what? I have nothing to hide" comments or other similar rubbish. It doesn't matter if we have nothing to hide, it's one small (or significant depending on point of view) step at a time to slowly gain your indifference until our kids and grandkids live in a total surveillance state with no expectation or right to privacy in anything they do. That is the ultimate goal, in the name of our safety of course...because obviously somewhere over the last 60 years Americans became completely incapable of not feeling safe if our Government isn't holding onto our hand while we cross the street. It's suppose to be the other way around.

    1. Re:Times, they are a changin by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would hazard a conjecture:

      The current crop of citizens most interviewed by the media about this issue are in their 20s and 30s.

      About a decade ago, pre september 11, those people would be in their teens and early 20s.

      At that time, a goodly proportion of them would still be active participants in highschool, and coincidentally, this is also the time that the columbine high shootings occured. (1999) Even prior to this, the use of security cameras in hallways, classroorms, and commons areas in US highschools was on the rise. After the event, any question of if this was a good idea was summarily shouted down, amid personal accusations of endangering children.

      It is now 10 years later, and the students subjected to the omnipresent institutionalized observation and invasion of privacy are now desensitized to the issue, and see it as just more of the same. The gravity of the situation is lost, as the cameras are not viewed as the threat to civil liberties that they truely are, but just another banal feature of daily life to be ignored.

      I can't exactly prove this, but the effects of institutionalism on behavior should not be ignored. Just ask the folks at standford.