DHS Deployed Plane Above San Bernardino To Scoop Up All Phone Calls After Attack (dailymail.co.uk)

schwit1 writes: Federal investigators looking into the San Bernardino massacre deployed a spy plane overhead after the attacks in an apparent attempt to find additional suspects. The Department of Homeland Security is said to have put up the single engine craft over the California city and ordered it to make repeated circles overhead. The craft would likely have been equipped with Dirtbox technology which can scan tens of thousands of phones in one go to identify suspects. The report adds to the intrigue about whether or not there were accomplices in the San Bernardino attacks, which took place last Wednesday and were the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

Comments

worst terrorist attack since when?

[Anonymous Coward]

> in the San Bernardino attacks, which took place last Wednesday and were the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11.

Uh, no.. They were the worst terrorist attack since the previous week...

*Cell* phones

[sunderland56]

Have we reached the point where "phone" refers to a cell phone? Or do we presume that terrorists don't have access to secure radio-free telephone technology?

Was Sandy Hook really not terrorism?

[damn_registrars]

A lot of terror was brought to the society, a lot of innocent people were killed. Just because the shooter wasn't an Islamic radical doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism; a lot of people place the federal building attack in Oklahoma City under the label "domestic terrorism", there is a strong argument for placing Sandy Hook in the same category.

Re:Was Sandy Hook really not terrorism?

[phantomfive]

A lot of terror was brought to the society, a lot of innocent people were killed. Just because the shooter wasn't an Islamic radical doesn't mean it wasn't terrorism;

Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

It can't just be "something that scares people" otherwise lightning and thunder would be terrorism. The Sandy Hook shooter was crazy, he didn't seem to have any political motive as far as anyone can tell. Oklahoma City might be called terrorism, since it had a political goal (and indeed, McVeigh even feels his goals were somewhat achieved), but McVeigh wasn't trying to scare or kill average people. He later said he wished he had done targeted assassinations instead of a mass bombing, since it would have avoided needless casualties. So OK city is kind of in a grey area.

I don't know why I am discussing this, an argument about a definition of a word is kind of silly thing to do, but oh well.

Surprised the acted this fast

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Surprised a government agency acted this fast. But still there is no need to reveal to the terrorists all the tools we have at out disposal.

Re:During or immediately after the attack

[niftymitch]

Searching to see if there are more terrorists engaged in a coordinated attack? Seems like a reasonable and responsible thing to do.

Reasonable in this context, sure.
Now that the data has been collected what else might they do with it?

The unreasonable process of parallel reconstruction wins convictions and
is so effective in scoring wins in court such that prosecutors and persecutors
alike want access to the data. Juries expect a case to be airtight today
because of the theater of TV crime fighting. The reality is that a total
parallel reconstruction of fiction will appear more airtight and more convincing
than the truth which depends on facts.

Recently a local city was pondering the right of an officer to review all
body and vehicle camera footage before they submit their action report.
This was the union demanding it of the city.. Where is the union elected
by the citizenship to demand closed door considerations...
Does their report process also extend to phone metadata as well?

I would note that the review of video evidence is not extended to the defendant. Any
discrepancy is held up as a lie in court and in the media to the disadvantage of the
defendant.

In this case deploying an aircraft to slurp up conversations and other
metadata makes a lot of sense on the surface. Further an aircraft may well
allow improved communications so authorities can communicate with the public should
terrorists attack cell service. Oh wait that is not part of the tool....

Such tools are very much double edge knives. Why is it that double edge
knives are so illegal?

Today such tools are an omission under the law and the secrecy surrounding them
sheds fruit from the poison tree to to a degree that some will regret.

Re:During or immediately after the attack

[niftymitch]

The big question is did they follow procedure?

....snip.....

It is important to rewrite this to "The big question is did they follow a legal procedure?".

I read too often that the department reviewed the incident and has ruled
the official acted as per departmental policy. No one addresses the legality
of departmental policy.

Consider asset forfeiture related policies. If the policy is in effect
see valuables especially cash, grab it, do not provide a receipt with the
exact sum. Do not bring the individual up on charges, do this for the
poor or out of town visitors.

Consider policies in a training academy that that teach an officer to
fire his weapon in concert with other officers to ensure fatalities. Such policies
have evolved for many reasons one is to eliminate expensive hospital and life long care to the
wounded and maimed. Death benefits are less expensive and the one
witness that knows the truth is dead.

Departmental review is not a legal action. It is law outside of the law and
is fundamentally as illegal as the mafia boss sending his minions out to
execute the competition for his illegal actions.