Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Is Behind Mysterious Flights Over US Cities

Posted by Soulskill on from the no-such-bureau dept.

New submitter kaizendojo sends a report from the Associated Press indicating the FBI has a small fleet of planes that fly across the U.S. carrying surveillance equipment. The planes are registered with fictitious companies to hide their association with the U.S. government. The FBI says they're only used for investigations that are "specific" and "ongoing," but they're often used without getting permission from a judge beforehand. "Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare." The AP identified at least 50 FBI-controlled planes, which have done over 100 flights since late April. The AP adds that they've seen the planes "orbiting large, enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection."

38 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure Obama will stop this nonsense just as soon as he's President and Bush is out of office...

    1. Re:Don't worry about it! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After he is elected for life!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Don't worry about it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure it'll happen in his first hundred days.

      He's not a corrupt stooge for corporate interests like Bush, and he says he really cares about me as an individual. The whole world will be different once Barack Obama is president.

      I can't wait for Bush and his cronies like Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, to leave office.

    3. Re:Don't worry about it! by dcollins117 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would think you'd tone it down a bit at least while there is another prominent story on the front page about professional internet trolling. It would be less transparent and maybe you could dupe a few more people that way. Not that I'm one to criticize.You have a job to do, probably one you hate and don't care if it's done well or not. Still, trolling is a art, and if you're going to do it, why not do it well?

  2. Yeerks by nvm_my_comment · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kind of sound like bad Sci-Fi but so did the NSA stuff...

    1. Re:Yeerks by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      ""Electronic communications" is the term used in the USA PATRIOT Act itself and was intentionally vague to cover everything from the telegraph to whatever gets invented in the future."

      That's why I went back to messenger pigeons.

      Exchanging birds every week is easier than setting up PGP.

    2. Re:Yeerks by HiThere · · Score: 2

      The "$200 hammer" was because the corporation that sold it wasn't willing to go through the paperwork for less.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  3. Confused by Ziest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you sure it's the FBI and not the Stasi? I'm having more and more trouble telling them apart.

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
    1. Re:Confused by evilrip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Stasi would get their pants in a wet bunch if they were around today :) USA has become a fascist state. These people they do not care about anything other than their own things. Damage to you and me is just the cost of doing business for them. REFORM IS NEEDED NOW! Didn't FBI come to life inspecting brothels? Perhaps they should go back to that or dismantle if there is no longer a demand for this.

      --
      "To err is human, to forgive, beyond the scope of the Operating System"
    2. Re:Confused by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      I bet the victims of the Stasi could put out the difference to you.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Confused by SpankiMonki · · Score: 4, Funny

      Didn't FBI come to life inspecting brothels?

      Yes, but since most of the johns turned out to be Secret Service agents, they decided to focus their efforts elswhere.

  4. POE OPE DOPE by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, FBI and NSA, you only use it for good, as opposed to Putin, who uses it for evil. The goodness in your heart will prevent your panopticon from being misused to fall into dictatorship, even though nothing in human history gives you confidence in that theory, and the Founding Fathers, who barely freed themselves from a much less intrusive entity, took great care to prevent government from doing what you are doing now, because they knew the flaw in allowing government any power like that was indeed the purity of your heart and your promise not to abuse.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. Batman: Beautiful, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lucius Fox: Beautiful... unethical... dangerous. You've turned every cellphone in Gotham into a microphone.
    Batman: And a high-frequency generator-receiver.
    Lucius Fox: You took my sonar concept and applied it to every phone in the city. With half the city feeding you sonar, you can image all of Gotham. This is *wrong*.
    Batman: I've gotta find this man, Lucius.
    Lucius Fox: At what cost?
    Batman: The database is null-key encrypted. It can only be accessed by one person.
    Lucius Fox: This is too much power for one person.
    Batman: That's why I gave it to you. Only you can use it.
    Lucius Fox: Spying on 30 million people isn't part of my job description.

    1. Re:Batman: Beautiful, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh great, now I have to change the combination to my luggage, garage door, cellphone, and bike lock, because you posted all of them on the internet. Jerk.

  6. This is all Bush's fault!!!! by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's too bad we couldn't elect a president that promises transparency and who will work to end these practices...

  7. And this is why by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reform of the FBI, NSA, etc is unlikely, they just "keep doing it".
    These guys are supposed to be the watchers, but who is watching the watchers? And even if someone was what can they do about it?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:And this is why by bobbied · · Score: 2

      I'm just wondering, what do we think they are doing? Where I agree it looks bad, but do we have any real information about what they are doing and if the data, pictures or what have you being collected really is somehow a problem.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:And this is why by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

      Reform of the FBI, NSA, etc is unlikely, they just "keep doing it".
      These guys are supposed to be the watchers, but who is watching the watchers? And even if someone was what can they do about it?

      What could they do about it?

      That depends... Who do the Joint Chiefs of Staff really serve? The President? Someone else?

      Do the military's generals serve our elected leaders?

      If so, I hate to say it, but that is the only recourse. You aren't going to stop the NSA/CIA/FBI using... themselves... It would take the military getting involved...

      The CIA might be powerful, but so is the 101st Airborne...

    3. Re:And this is why by SpankiMonki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just wondering, what do we think they are doing? Where I agree it looks bad, but do we have any real information about what they are doing and if the data, pictures or what have you being collected really is somehow a problem.

      Right.

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      TFA notes that the FBI's surveillance is "generally" done without a judge's approval. The problem here is obvious.

    4. Re:And this is why by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Yes, but.. The courts have established that law enforcement CAN do surveillance in public areas and collect evidence of crimes. Plus, if they are doing warranted surveillance of one thing and happen to see evidence of an unrelated crime they can use that evidence. This is what the local traffic cop is doing when he drives around looking for speeders or people who blow though red lights and it's all perfectly legal.

      So given that, if they are up taking video of a valid target from a public space (and they are), it's not a legal problem and doesn't violate the constitution. (So sayeth the courts which are charged with interpreting the meaning of the 4th and 5th amendments). Now if you are tapping his phone or putting video cameras in his house, you are going to need a warrant for that.

      Also, the collection of evidence isn't a problem really, it's how you use it that matters. If you illegally obtain evidence, you cannot use it or you risk loosing everything subsequently collected based on this evidence. Law enforcement knows this so they usually are VERY careful about being legal, lest their case be thrown out for lack of evidence they can use in court. Not legally collecting evidence is a one way ticket to letting the bad guy off. Yes it happens, but rarely.

      So, I don't see where it is a given they are violating folks constitutional rights here. There is a slim chance they might be, but I seriously doubt they are, despite what you might think it looks like.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:And this is why by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember that ALL evidence related to a case MUST be disclosed to the defense at trial, ... So they simply DON'T develop evidence which isn't 100% legal, obtaining warrants when necessary, the risks are too great

      Is that meant as sarcasm? If it was meant to be serious, then you are seriously mis-informed. Google "Parallel construction"

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:And this is why by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      We don't know they are scooping up cell phone data...

      From TFA

      "Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare."

      The FBI admits they are scooping up cell phone data.

    7. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Parallel construction is illegal. It is a method of hiding illegally obtained evidence. If a defense attorney can prove it is being done the evidence becomes inadmissible under the "Fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.
      Does it happen? We know it does, but that doesn't make it legal or permissible.

    8. Re:And this is why by koan · · Score: 2

      If it's spoofing a cell tower the way the Stingray does then it's getting every phone attached to the spoofed tower, it is "scooping" it all up.
      Especially in a case like Ferguson or Baltimore, you would want to scoop it all up.

      In active mode, the StingRay will force each compatible cellular device in a given area to disconnect from its service provider cell site (i.e., operated by Verizon, AT&T, etc.) and establish a new connection with the StingRay.[12]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      In any case why trust them? They are using front companies to do this with and they don't have a real good reputation these days.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. 50 aircraft by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a big fleet of planes. Just think, one "not secret" program inside one bureau of one branch of our Federal Government controls 50 aircraft, and we're not even allow to know what this operation is called, as they smother the whole thing under shell companies.

    Isn't having a giant government great? Lets give them more money and see what they do with it.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    1. Re:50 aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about you take ownership of yourself, your family, neighbors friends and communities, learn about voluntary association and non use of force...
      and then tell your useless unnecessary government rulers and tax, spend and enrichers to the poverty and control of the people... to fuck off.
      Worked pretty good in 1776, and needs to happen again.

  9. From who? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The planes are registered with fictitious companies to hide their association with the U.S. government.

    Hide their association from who, exactly? Air traffic control? It's not like you can see who registered a plane from the ground.

    This statement just screams "we are breaking the rules and don't want to get caught"

    1. Re:From who? by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The planes are registered with fictitious companies to hide their association with the U.S. government.

      Hide their association from who, exactly? Air traffic control? It's not like you can see who registered a plane from the ground.

      This statement just screams "we are breaking the rules and don't want to get caught"

      Bullshit.

      Let's make one thing clear right now. Our Government doesn't give a shit about being "caught". They haven't cared about this for quite some time now.

      They don't give a shit because they know there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

      Classified operations staying classified for other reasons? Sure, but I fail to see why they need to hide any unconstitutional/illegal operation anymore. Ever.

    2. Re:From who? by clong83 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I suppose if you are the ringleader of a large criminal enterprise, like the Gambino family, you might get suspicious if an FBI-registered airplane was circling your house. At least that part doesn't really bother me any more than the fact they use unmarked, or decptively marked vans on stakeouts.

      Even the fact that there are 50 of them doesn't bother me, really. It's a huge country, and the FBI is national in scope. A little single engine prop plane isn't going to be able to go out of Indiana to eavesdrop on a suspect in Montana very easily.

      SPying on a particular suspect in an ongoing investigation? I've got no problem with that, but get a warrant. The lack of any warrant necessary to send a plane after you and record your every move is unsettling. If they are indeed for specific investigations, it should be no problem to get one.

      The article mentions that they were also used during the recent unrest in Baltimore. I think this type of use is probably okay, but it again depends on what exactly their purpose is, and what kind of information they are extracting from the crowds below. And we don't know that. Reporting crowd movements and/or new gatherings of people away from the riot police? Videotaping the rioters? A-OK by me. Cell phone tower spoofing? Now I think you are back into warrant territory.

      Lastly, we need to know more about when these things are deployed. If they are generally flying around willy-nilly with no particular purpose and recording everything, I have a problem with that. THey say that is not happening, but we as yet have no transparency to ensure that.

  10. specific and ongoing by schlachter · · Score: 2

    The FBI says they're only used for investigations that are "specific" and "ongoing,"

    glad they're not using them for their nonspecific and already ended investigations.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  11. Not just the USA by fremsley471 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This article is from Bristol, UK. They've been flying planes there for years.

    http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/S...

    One assumes in the UK it's linked to this:
    http://leaksource.info/2014/09...
    but that's pure speculation.

  12. Why hide it? by Bugler412 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why hide this behind shell companies if it's all above board, authorized and legal? Oh, wait, anything that law enforcement does must be legal right? /sarcasm Wouldn't it be a more effective crime deterrent if the aircraft had large bold block letter lighted signs that said FBI on them?

    1. Re:Why hide it? by RyoShin · · Score: 2

      Because this isn't about deterring active crime. It's about monitoring the population at large, compiling the data, and then if someone gets on the bad side of The Man they can go through the data to find ways to discredit or arrest said someone.

      It's not about deterrence, or threat assessment, it's about threat creation and control.

  13. Re:How is this surprising by HairyNevus · · Score: 3

    Did anyone NOT think it was the FBI?

    I would've guessed NSA first. Actually FBI would be my fourth, after DEA and DHS.

    --
    You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
  14. At least they're not black helicopters... by Maltheus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...cause that would just be creepy.

  15. Sounds like Stingray by Thelasko · · Score: 2

    Stingray phone tracking has been going on in secret for a while now. Even by some local police departments.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  16. Re:50 aircraft? Actual count: 97 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have been tracking this myself for the previous two weeks. I have identified 97 aircraft by N number from the FAA database that are registered to 15 non existent entities like "NG Research" and "RKT Productions". The bulk purchases of Cessna 182T aircraft started in 2010. Several sequentially serial numbered 182's are licensed to different FBI shell companies. Mostly, the fleet consists of 182's and Cessna 206's. There are also a couple of helicopters and a Cessna Citation V jet.

    Personally, it has been interesting to me watching this story break in the popular media as my information is clearly more complete than what is in the AP story.

  17. Re:So what exactly are they doing wrong? by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they're flying a fleet of 50 planes, doing dragnet surveillance by spoofing cell phone towers. Okay.

    When it comes to these people, benefit of the doubt is not something that should be extended.