Spies In The Skies: FBI Planes Are Circling US Cities (buzzfeed.com)

Peter Aldhous, and Charles Seife, reporting for BuzzFeed News: Each weekday, dozens of U.S. government aircraft take to the skies and slowly circle over American cities. Piloted by agents of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the planes are fitted with high-resolution video cameras, often working with "augmented reality" software that can superimpose onto the video images everything from street and business names to the owners of individual homes. At least a few planes have carried devices that can track the cell phones of people below. Most of the aircraft are small, flying a mile or so above ground, and many use exhaust mufflers to mute their engines -- making them hard to detect by the people they're spying on. [...] The government's aerial surveillance programs deserve scrutiny by the Supreme Court, said Adam Bates, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C. "It's very difficult to know, because these are very secretive programs, exactly what information they're collecting and what they're doing with it," Bates told BuzzFeed News.

Comments

Just wait for one to fail and have to land on LSD

[Joe_Dragon]

Just wait for one to fail and have to land on LSD (the road)

Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Spies In The Skies: FBI Planes Are Circling U.S. Cities

Now replace this with:

Spies in on the Roads: FBI Cars are Circling U.S. Cities

How is this any different? Is the FBI not allowed to fly planes now? Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the FBI as far as I can throw them, but..I'm not sure what they are doing here is illegal?

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Spies In The Skies: FBI Planes Are Circling U.S. Cities

Now replace this with:

Spies in on the Roads: FBI Cars are Circling U.S. Cities

How is this any different? Is the FBI not allowed to fly planes now? Don't get me wrong, I don't trust the FBI as far as I can throw them, but..I'm not sure what they are doing here is illegal?

Flying is not illegal. Large scale surveillance of cities and us citizens might be.
The FBI really is the new SA/SS.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying is not illegal. Large scale surveillance of cities and us citizens might be.

Does it matter if you are doing it with a plane or 150 police in unmarked cars? Observing public spaces, even if from altitude, generally has been considered quite okay with the courts.

The FBI really is the new SA/SS.

Uhh, okay. I dislike the FBI as much as the next guy, but if you seriously think this, I don't think you understand the scale of the crimes committed by the SS and SA.

I hear Godwin calling...

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[RabidReindeer]

Two things:

First, inherently aerial surveillance can be (unobtrusively) broad. That plays into the NSA-we're-logging-everyone's-calls-innocent-or-not concern.

Secondly - and this is an area open to debate - there's the reasonable expectation of privacy. Something that has been used to justify a lot of surveillance in these un-private times.

A person who stands at one end of a block and shouts at a person at the other end of the block cannot reasonably expect privacy. People are going to hear whether they want to or not.

A person who stands next to another person and talks in a normal voice doesn't have a true expectation of privacy, but common courtesy typically comes into play here unless they have reason to suspect bystanders.

If the people are being overhead from the other end of the block because someone has unobtrusively trained a shotgun microphone on them, that's exceeding reasonable expectations because people who go around with live shotgun mikes are not the norm and because individuals are being spied on. That's about the same degree as aerial surveillance with an unmuted plane.

A person who's in a house talking to another person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy because even though I could bounce a laser off the window from a hidden location and pick up what was being said, that's something that needs a warrant, or at least provable justification. More or less the same level for a muted plane. Other similar acts incude attaching a GPS to someone's vehicle. or hijacking phone calls with a Stingray.

If instead of actively aiming a spy beam at the house in question, I set up a cosmic ray detector equipped with an audio demodulator, I'm outside all bounds of reasonable expectation. This where stuff like tracking your cellphone's location lies.

Note that these examples have no legal weight. What courts rule as "reasonable" can be quite unreasonable, but once you get into that territory, you're risking a legislative backlash or at least domestic discontent.

The reasonable expectation of privacy in un-private situations isn't a new issue. The Federal Communications Act of 1934 allowed persons to monitor any radio-wave transmissions that they could capture, but communications not explicitly directed as public broadcasts or to the listener were not be be repeated or exploited. When Reagan "got the government off the backs of the people", they narrowed that, making it against the law to monitor selected frequencies, but regardless, private radio conversations were expected to remain private, whether intercepted legally or not.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[lgw]

How is this any different? Is the FBI not allowed to fly planes now?

It emphasizes the government's power and our weakness (so all the /. statists should have no problem with it). It plays into all the classic paranoia about an overreaching government, hiding dark secrets. The general feeling that the X-files played to. As the song goes:

Unmarked helicopters - hovering
The Lord is coming soon
Unmarked helicopters - hovering
They said it was a weather balloon
I know the truth
I know the whole shebang
I know the names of men they had to hang

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[ooloorie]

Does it matter if you are doing it with a plane or 150 police in unmarked cars? Observing public spaces, even if from altitude, generally has been considered quite okay with the courts.

It should be OK for private citizens. But many actions that are legitimate for private citizens are not legitimate for government.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[ooloorie]

but..I'm not sure what they are doing here is illegal?

Almost nothing the FBI or the government does is "illegal". We can still discuss whether these activities are wise or whether we should limit them.

How is this any different?

It may not be any different: the FBI shouldn't "circle cities" and collect data on millions of innocent people that way either.

More importantly, any such programs should be out in the open: that is, the FBI should be required to detail what exactly they were doing, why, and how. They should explain what data they collected, and they should have strict criteria for what to retain and what to delete.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[tnk1]

The FBI really is the new SA/SS

Proving only that you have no idea what the SA or the SS actually were.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[tnk1]

If the people are being overhead from the other end of the block because someone has unobtrusively trained a shotgun microphone on them, that's exceeding reasonable expectations because people who go around with live shotgun mikes are not the norm and because individuals are being spied on. That's about the same degree as aerial surveillance with an unmuted plane.

Perhaps, but I think it is entirely legal to do so. The question is what the data is being put to use for and whether they should be collecting it.

In this sense, I think it is entirely legal to do what they are doing. To me that means that there needs to be a law that controls that more closely. And I'd prefer a law. I tire of having the judiciary actually doing the legislation in the country. Whether or not it is the right thing to do, I think this country needs to re-engage in actually following the legislative process rather than waiting for someone to hire a lawyer to fix things in the courts so that we don't actually have to elect people who will take this shit seriously.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, okay. I dislike the FBI as much as the next guy, but if you seriously think this, I don't think you understand the scale of the crimes committed by the SS and SA.

I hear Godwin calling...

I think you're confusing the Stasi (the secret police in post war East Germany [1950-1989]) which spied on it's citizens, with the SS (Schutzstaffel [1925-1945]) which was the enforcement arm of NAZI party and responsible for the war crimes committed.

A secret police wasn't just in Germany - it was in all of Eastern Europe and Soviet satellite state well into the late 1980s.
Whatever you think of the governments aside, the intelligence agencies work for their governments - the resulting actions are taken by their recipients of their intel. So although we don't have as loatheful a government as those states [yet], the intel gathering apparatus is much worse now than it was then.

We're already though beginning our slide down the slippery slope though.
Ask yourself - why are we collecting more information on what happens in the US, than in the middle east?
Intel is currently being shared with law enforcement. How is that consistent with the due process that supposedly separates us from 3rd world dictatorships?

You see, mass surveillance is a tool not for going after everyone all the time, it's a tool for getting dirt on undesirable individuals for things "unrelated" to the cause of the annoyance (which are not illegal, and often virtuous). It's for people like Joe Nacchio (http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/03/27/former-qwest-ceo-joe-nacchio-tells-story-fight-against-nsa-sec.html).

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[tnk1]

The government, at any time, has a huge treasure trove of secrets and information at its disposal. That's bothersome, but the reality is that half the time, they can't even coordinate with each other enough to make any use out of it at all, good or bad. What tends to matter is who in the government has the data and how it can affect you.

Having huge amounts of information on file with the government is absolutely guaranteed if we maintain our trajectory of having the government have to take care of everything for us. We can outlaw all the small airplanes all we want, and we'll still have a huge amount of information on us in government databases just due to the services we're required to use.

Just consider this, aside from any issue with the ACA you might have on principle, *everyone* is now required to file with the government whether they have a health care plan that meets certain requirements or pay a penalty. I don't recall that in the past the government was actually aware of what insurance I used, particularly since I have not had to make use of Medicare or any government program. Now, that information is in a database at the IRS. I'm honestly less concerned with some airplane than I am with the ACA requirement because the plane will probably never take note of a single thing I do, and even then the use of that data in court is sketchy, but the ACA ensures that I must provide limited, but detailed information to be stored legally in a database, which will certainly be used to enforce a law on me.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[fnj]

Perhaps, but I think it is entirely legal to do so.

"Legal" in terms of governmental activity and policies is simply defined by whatever laws that government has passed to authorize its actions and policies. Please don't get hung up on the concept of legality when evaluating governmental actions and policies. It was perfectly "legal" for the Nazis to round up arbitrarily-selected victims and work them to death as slave labor, or murder them in extermination facilities. It was "legal" because they passed laws and authorized authorities to make it so.

That does not make it acceptable. The legal system is supposed to flow from morality.

In this sense, I think it is entirely legal to do what they are doing. To me that means that there needs to be a law that controls that more closely.

This is bass-ackwards logic. What is needed is not laws that restrict improper government behavior. It is the absence of laws that authorize improper government behavior. Most of them are blatantly unconstitutional anyway. Respect for rights and propriety has to flow from the people, as it did in 1776. The people are the reason government exists. Government is not the reason people exist. When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Flea of Pain]

Observing public spaces, even if from altitude, generally has been considered quite okay with the courts.

The problem is that 'public spaces' change based on altitude. What happens in my backyard is private...if you are on the street. My reasonable expectation of privacy extends to my backyard because I have a fence. If someone comes by and stands on a ladder to take pictures of me in my yard, they are invading my privacy. So yes, those planes are looking into many places that are not public spaces. Just ask Google, they got into a lot of trouble with their streetview cars because the cameras were mounted higher than eye level and were getting pictures into peoples yards.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[lgw]

So many Americans are now fine with a totalitarian state - oh they don't like the word, but they always trust the government with more power, always find that better than the alternative. Even blatant corruption (corporation buying influence openly) is seen as a problem that only more government power (regulate the corporations) can solve. It's, frankly, frightening.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Solandri]

A person who's in a house talking to another person does have a reasonable expectation of privacy because even though I could bounce a laser off the window from a hidden location and pick up what was being said, that's something that needs a warrant, or at least provable justification. More or less the same level for a muted plane.

We came dangerously close to losing that expectation in 2001. 5-4 Supreme Court decision. It's something I would've expected to be 9-0 or 8-1, or maybe 7-2 at worst. That it came out 5-4 says something about how little weight privacy rights carry in the minds of most Americans.

Don't look for politics - the breakdown was across party lines with both conservative and liberal justices assenting and dissenting. So this isn't something that can be solved by voting one party in or out. This is an issue which needs to be addressed at a more fundamental level. As an immigrant coming from a country where it was taken for granted that the government was eavesdropping in on your phone conversations, I think the problem is that Americans just don't have a sense of the chilling effect that widespread government surveillance has on how you speak and behave. It's one of those things that doesn't seem like a big deal unless you've experienced it as an oppressive part of your everyday life. I thought it was all a conspiracy theory until my GF got a call from the government about my travel plans - something I had only discussed with her on the phone, indicating they were listening in on our phone conversations.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter if you are doing it with a plane or 150 police in unmarked cars?

Yes. You are comparing 150 - 300 checks and balances (assuming the buddy system may or may not be in place) to potentially a few corrupt people.

It is much more difficult to have a conspiracy with hundreds of people involved than it is to have one with 2-3. The more manpower it takes for the government to do anything the better.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[onepoint]

but don't I get some sort of expectation of privacy on my roof or back yard if I have high fences ??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... now I am not asking for the right of privacy, but this seems to be pattern searching for big data. FOI coming up I guess

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

In the real world, your citizenship status is a key variable in the expectation-of-privacy function.

Politicians and super-rich have a naturally high reasonable expectation of privacy under the law. They can go so far as to claim that the mere act of aggregation and reporting on already-publicly-disclosed information violates their privacy.

For ordinary poor people, anything beyond telepathy removes all expectation of privacy.

Poor people think this is unfair. Of course others disagree. In balancing freedom, those with the power to make the call tend to favor themselves, so here we are.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

are you stupid or just blind and deaf? legal is whatever new bill oligarchs buy from congress

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

What the brown shirts started as is identical to the FBI. A national police force.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[KGIII]

Once upon a time there was an Amendment to the Constitution. It was rather specific, it basically said that the powers that weren't granted to the federal government (by the Constitution) were left to the people or to the individual States. Why do I mention that?

What that Amendment meant was that it was, at one time, interpreted to mean that if the Constitution did not specifically allow for it that it was not something that the Federal Government was allowed to do. In other words, if the Constitution did not give them permission then it was not allowed and the rights were reserved for the individual or for the State.

Somewhere along the road that changed. Now, the interpretation is the other way around. Now, it's read that if the Constitution doesn't expressly disallow it that it's allowed. It's pretty much exactly the opposite of the intent and we, the citizens, have not only allowed this misinterpretation but have actively cheered it on when it was "our side" that was doing it.

I don't know exactly how or when it happened but there are a few key places to look. I think it was over several events and has gotten progressively worse.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[tnk1]

The SA was never a national police force or even a governmental body. The SA was only ever the paramilitary branch of the Nazi party. Full stop. Powerful, yes. Numerous, yes. Violent, most definitely. Police? No. They were brawlers, thugs, and bodyguards. They engaged in illegal intimidation and street fights with equally violent German Communists. They executed progroms on Jews. In short, they were a uniformed gang. They were... the original Skinheads, only with less anarchy and more uniforms. And probably more hair.

Indeed, when Ernst Rohm (chief of the SA) started making noises about having the SA become the basis of the German Army is when Hitler was pressured by the powerful professional military to put Rohm down and drastically curtail the SA's influence. This was the "Night of the Long Knives" for those who care to look it up.

Now, the SS became something like a national police force after Goering turned over his control of the Prussian State Police to Himmler and the Kriminalpolizei was unified under him as Chief of the German Police and they were all given SS ranks, Or perhaps it is more realistic to say that the Police became a little more like the SS, since they simply kept on the existing cops on for the most part.

But to call the FBI an analogue to the SS is like saying that the RCMP is also like the SS. They might be national and uniformed, but it is their mode of operation which distinguishes them from other police forces, not the fact that they happened to be a national police force. The FBI isn't running concentration camps or acting as a political police force. It's like saying that anyone with a remotely authoritarian streak is automatically Hitler. There's a reason there's only been one Hitler and he's pretty much the modern equivalent of Satan. You would need to do a lot to best (or worst) his actual deeds.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[spacepimp]

They are circling cities for hours on end with unwarranted stingrays, collecting tens of thousands of innocent civilians data and communications in the process isn't legal whether in a car in a boat or a plane. That is only one set of sensors they are using in these aircraft while circling cities with unregistered (unrecorded flights). Take an SDR radio tune into ADS-B and start plotting the flights. You'l see them circling above LA or NY or wherever they feel like flying, without reasonable suspicion for the masses they are surveying.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[spacepimp]

Using a stingray isn't considered observing a public space. It is not the same as a wiretap, in that it pulls also in thousands of innocent bystanders information in the process. You can't put GPS on a car without a warrant, they are essentially doing this in a plane and tracking thousands of innocents and therefore conducting illegal searches.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[spacepimp]

The FBI takes their torture outside of the United States so the American citizens who have their rights trampled do not have recourse with due process. They are torturing US citizens without any accountability. But you are right the FBI isn't a carbon copy of the SS. Are you suggesting that the FBI are fine, they aren't abusing rights or citizens and are fully accountable legal task force within the US? Lying about things such as stopping terror plots and getting caught aren't the actions of well intended police forces.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI really is the new SA/SS.

Note that this tech was available in the 60's [maybe 50'] but somehow the Stasi and KGB did not take advantage of it.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The SA was never a national police force or even a governmental body. The SA was only ever the paramilitary branch of the Nazi party. Full stop. Powerful, yes. Numerous, yes. Violent, most definitely. Police? No. They were brawlers, thugs, and bodyguards. They engaged in illegal intimidation and street fights with equally violent German Communists. They executed progroms on Jews. In short, they were a uniformed gang. They were... the original Skinheads, only with less anarchy and more uniforms. And probably more hair.

Indeed, when Ernst Rohm (chief of the SA) started making noises about having the SA become the basis of the German Army is when Hitler was pressured by the powerful professional military to put Rohm down and drastically curtail the SA's influence.

Yep. Even Hitler was afraid of the SA [which can be more adequately compared to S. Hussein's Palace Guard]

Re: Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler ? BWAHH - Hitler was an amateur. Pol Pot killed 4-5 million of his own people without any of the fancy technology that Hitler had. But for the all time champion you can't go past Joe Stalin who killed over 20 million of his own people.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Zak3056]

Uhh, okay. I dislike the FBI as much as the next guy, but if you seriously think this, I don't think you understand the scale of the crimes committed by the SS and SA.

I hear Godwin calling...

You realize that everything starts somewhere, yes? The US is turning into a police state. The outrages suffered thus far are relatively small scale and sporadic, but the tools are all being put into place. If you cannot imagine the FBI as tomorrow's SA or STASI then you simply lack imagination.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[HiThere]

Parts of the tech were available. Large rapidly accessible reliable cheap data storage wasn't. And there were other pieces that were missing.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[tnk1]

First off, let's be clear. I do know that US Citizens did fall into the hands of countries like Ethiopia while they were fighting for the Islamic Courts regime in Somalia. And there was possibly torture while the FBI (who were observers) took no action. That's deeply troubling, and possibly illegal.

However, I want to make myself clear that just because the FBI can do questionable things, that it is important to understand scale. The SS was a paramilitary (and as the Waffen SS, a military) group that was the political arm of the Nazi Party even more than the government. They engaged in running concentration camps, extermination camps, and carried out efficient mass executions in the field. They were involved in the T4 euthanasia program to kill undesirables, they were wrapped up in the racial and ethnic theories of the Nazis to the point where they were supposed to be the Aryan ideal. They were in charge of the Gestapo and the SD (which were the actual secret police) They also engaged in ritual sought to replace religion with some sort of SS religion of Teutonic mysticism which even Hitler thought was odd.

In short, they were a state within a state, and in charge of every oppressive state agency. And they used that power regularly and efficiently with almost zero check on any of their actions.

Oh yes, and they tortured people. And so has probably a large number of police agencies worldwide. That doesn't make any of them the SS. Comparing the FBI's actions, illegal or undesirable as they might be to that of the SS is to diminish the enormity of what the SS represented to make a contemporary political point via hyperbole. And that, I do not care to accept.

So I don't accept the comparison, but that doesn't mean my rejection of a bad comparison means I support illegal or unethical actions. I oppose inaccuracy.

Re: Lets replace some words in the headline

[Lenny369]

No. Go read case law. High fences are the standard for viewing from the ground. A roof is the standard for viewing from the air. The only thing they can't do as of now is use intrusive technology such as thermal and xray imaging - that has been ruled a search. Go read.

Re: Lets replace some words in the headline

[Lenny369]

Wrong. Start with as you said, "If the people are being overhead from the other end of the block because someone has unobtrusively trained a shotgun microphone on them, that's exceeding reasonable expectations because people who go around with live shotgun mikes are not the norm" Wrong. Not based on logic. The simple fact that most people don't use the technology has zero bearing on the law. Case precedents have always held that if you are in public view, you can assume that someone can see you with a telephoto lens. That is not intrusive. Go read case law.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Bob_Who]

Yeah. But the good news is I'm not insane or hallucinating, after all!

I've been watching conventional aircraft, lit and level, hovering the skies at night over the mountains, and the bay for years.

On any clear night, without too much moon, the sky panorama includes at least one aircraft that is not about transportation or highway management. I ALWAYS SEE THEM. This is the first I'm hearing about it in the press. FFO's : Federal (or Frickin') Flying Objects.

Its not aliens, its your tax dollars entertaining tripsters in tin foil hats who don't like the new x-files...

Re: Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Stalin killed more than 60 million people. He simply was a really good Leninist. Lenin made decrees to kill random people in willages and towns so other people would be terrified of communist party might.
Mao killed even more. Even Maos big hunger in China killed more than 70 million. And think about the millions killed during the "revolution" and "cultural revolution in china.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI isn't running concentration camps or acting as a political police force.

Are you sure??
What about Black Sites and Gitmo? Oh they're run by another 3 letter agency. Over the past few years I have sure seen the FBI play parts in political actions and not good parts.

The FBI is the national police force of a Fascist State. So you can't say there is really much difference in the FBI and the SS or Gestapo.

Re:Lets replace some words in the headline

[KGIII]

It's been a couple of years since I tripped last. Hmm... My mind could use a vacation, the chance to reground, and the introspective nature of it is something I appreciate. There's no such thing as a bad trip, they're only more interesting.

Do you feel safe yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI is working hard to track down those terrorist extremists in Denver & Minneapolis.

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

"many use exhaust mufflers to mute their engines -- making them hard to detect by the people they're spying on" give me a break.... every plane has a right to fly over cities, FBI or non-FBI... they could easily explain it as a random mission... this is just fear-mongering.... classic FUD

Re:FUD

[Sperbels]

Fear-mongering? Nonsense. Buzzfeed is a quality, respected, non-sensationalist news organization. The FBI hates them!

Re:FUD

[PPH]

every plane has a right to fly over cities, FBI or non-FBI

Not if its airspace under ATC control. Fly around in circles, particularly with transponders turned off, and both ATC and every other pilot in the area will shit themselves.

Re:FUD

[Archangel Michael]

Which means, they have their transponders on, and ATC knows what they are up to.

My problem with this, is our government seems to think it is free to do what it wants. It does not.

My bigger problem with this, is that the people more or less believe that we don't have a choice in our government's activities. We live in a defacto surveilence state, mainly because we accept it as "normal". We are in a tyranny of security, because we are not longer the land of the free, home of the brave. Especially when the presence of chalk is cause for panic among the snowflakes attending college.

Re:FUD

[micahraleigh]

You are not paying for every plane to fly in the skies

Re:FUD

[Muad'Dave]

... making them hard to detect by the people they're spying on ...

More likely "making them harder to be noticed by the people they're spying on". If I hear a plane constantly buzzing everywhere I go, I'm gonna get suspicious.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

... making them hard to detect by the people they're spying on ...

More likely "making them harder to be noticed by the people they're spying on". If I hear a plane constantly buzzing everywhere I go, I'm gonna get suspicious.

The thing is: the masses never look to the sky. Just the other day a beautiful C-47 passed above, with it's signature sound, but nobody around me cared to take a look. Bovines. MOOO,

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? You don't fly, do you? I've gotten IFR clearance without a transponder, never mind fly around in circles in decent weather. The only place it's required equipment is in a Mode C Veil, and even then only if you have an engine-driven electrical system. Not one pilot below FL180 would even notice, let alone give a shit. And if I tell ATC I've got a photo mission in Class C, guess what: 99 times out 10 they'll say "go for it," and the one other time they'll say "I've got lots of traffic on approach that way; can you come back later?"

People seem to have this notion that ATC rules the skies and every airplane is on a strict flight plan made of neat little straight lines. It ain't so. ATC provides a service. They're aren't the sky police. They're there to provide separation, not to write tickets.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "99 out of 100," obvs.

Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[mi]

Come November, be sure to vote for a Democrat so as to finally end the KKKonservative grip on the White House and restore our privacy!

“This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."

Oh, wait...

(Troll my tail...)

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

These flights actually started under Bush.

Re: Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure Obama has been in office almost 8 years

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Notorious G]

These flights actually started under Bush.

So? Does that actually mean something to you somehow, after continuing these for the last 7+ years after Bush left office?

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing Obama got elected then, eh?

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Obama put an end to them.

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is what is wrong with American politics. We all listen to that soothing message & never look at the persons actual track record. No Obama wasn't just a one term senator, he was also a prodigy of mayor Daley's machine. More importantly w/o effective leadership (not management) all of the under departments of the president will keep doing as they damn well please.

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[stealth_finger]

And Obama put an end to them.

Just like gitmo....wait a sec

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Archangel Michael]

Started under Bush, enhanced under Obama, and they still think there are two parties?

Which is why politicians debate irrelevancies instead of the important matters. Trump n Cruz fighting over wives, Hillary and Bernie fighting over how much free stiff they'll bribe the voters with.

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how detached from reality are you?
I don't suppose you realize that the Cato Institute (which you seem to be agreeing with) is about as conservative as you get, and Obama is Democrat?
Until you see that you'll find both enemies and allies in both parties, you're a lost cause, just playing cheerleader. You might as well say: "I support Good. I oppose Evil!" - you'd be saying something just as vapid, but at least you wouldn't be both offensive and nonsensical while you do it.

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[mi]

Started under Bush, enhanced under Obama, and they still think there are two parties?

There are two parties. One is openly saying, we will use these nasty methods to protect the country. Weight your safety against the discomfort you feel about it, and vote for us, if you agree with us.

The other noisily denounce the very choice as "false", promises not to do anything unpleasant, gets elected based (in substantial part) on that promise, and then does it anyway. Because "it is complicated" — you bet it is, and so it was for the other guy, whom you denounced for "piping fear" and "shredding the Constitution".

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[tnk1]

Hey! He was totally going to do it, but the Republican's made him keep it open. Or something.

As if they could prevent him from taking an executive action on detainees on a military base on foreign soil who are there quite simply because they were captured by the US military of which he is Commander-in-Chief of and they aren't US citizens and have few well defined rights under US law or the Geneva Conventions.

It's not as if he would ever threaten to use executive action to do anything that Congress didn't like. Right?

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[kilfarsnar]

These flights actually started under Bush.

On this subject there is little difference between the parties. On abortion, sure. On mass surveillance, they're all for it.

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[Archangel Michael]

In the seven years of Obama, things aren't any better. The changes you posit are window dressing to the real issues underneath.

If you want a really good example, take a look at what major figures in both the (D) and (R) parties say about Snowden ... "he is a traitor"

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/...

The only person who REMOTELY understands is Rand Paul, who says Snowden needs Jail (alongside Clapper).

I am a libertarian, and while Snowden may have violated the law (and I don't care why), he exposed to the world that nothing has really changed. And still, nothing has really changed.

All you need to know is that there are secret courts issuing secret documents that nobody can talk about. Obama has done NOTHING to stop them

http://www.engadget.com/2016/0...

Go ahead, and make excuses why one party is "better" than the other. IMHO that is equivalent to saying one turd smells better that another.

Re:Kick the RethugliKKKan out of the White House!

[mi]

In the seven years of Obama, things aren't any better.

Of course! Because he was lying to get elected, whereas the other party was honest, even if it caused them to lose the election.

The changes you posit are window dressing to the real issues underneath.

Reading is not really your thing, is it?

So they are already using drones

[Anonymous Coward]

But these are piloted ISR aircraft instead.

Re:So they are already using drones

[PPH]

piloted ISR aircraft

Right. And this makes an altitude of a mile a non issue when trying to spot them, mufflers or not. A Piper Cub at 5000 ft is easy to spot, particularly if it's doing something strange like circling around.

Re:So they are already using drones

[z0idberg]

That must be why everyone was already well aware of these activities right?

Or is this the first most people are hearing about it...

As Alan Parsons Once Said

[Anonymous Coward]

The Eye in the Sky Keeps On Turning. I don't know where I'll be to-morrow. Sirius.

Re: As Alan Parsons Once Said

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't he say wheels.

Besides Journey are undercover KGB.

Re:Just wait for one to fail and have to land on L

[Anonymous Coward]

They would have too, as former Mayor Daley unilaterally closed Meigs Field back in 2003, in the middle of the night, without prior notice.
You do mean Lake Shore Drive in Chicago ... right?

Eye in the Sky

[Fuseboy]

There's a great Radiolab episode about the sorts of capabilities these planes can have. Essentially, they're doing pre-emptive surveillance - they take high-resolution snapshots every second, so when there's a crime of some sort reported (e.g. a robbery, a drive-by, a getaway vehicle), they can follow the cars involved backwards in time to see where they started out, or where they went afterwards.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/...

Re:Eye in the Sky

[Notorious G]

I had thought about that episode as well. Being able to track you everywhere and also *everywhen* is quite the feat.

Re:Eye in the Sky

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that those complicated 4d models can easily extrapolate forward in time as well.

Re:Eye in the Sky

[Anonymous Coward]

Gorgon stare was...not the most successful project. And a similar project has been tried in a few US cities with poor results. How do you look at a large area but also have high enough resolution to zoom in after the fact (to get meaningful images) and have the desired look down angles all at the same time? So far anything over a mile-ish in radius has largely been a bust domestically.

Re:Eye in the Sky

[pr0t0]

Given all the mass surveillance we've been alerted to (thank you Edward Snowden!) in the supposed effort of combating terrorism, I've always been a "he who trades freedom for security deserves neither" type of guy. But the RadioLab podcast brings it to a much more personal level because instead of fighting terrorism, which seems far removed from my reality, it looks at mass surveillance as a way to combat crime. And it's really pretty effective and cost-efficient.

The biggest problem with a system like this, as I see it, is that innocent people cannot opt-out of the surveillance. You'd almost have to start with building a brand new community that had the caveat, "This community is under constant aerial surveillance." Then you could decide to live there or not. A community like that would likely have little to no crime; not because of the surveillance, but because of the type of people willing to live under the threat of surveillance. Of course then, you almost don't need the system.

But maybe that's still focusing on the wrong problem. Maybe the money should be spent on preventing people from doing bad things to begin with. It's a struggle against human nature to be sure, but it's a worthy struggle. I just watched a great TED talk from a Boston prosecutor who talks about fixing society in general, and the justice system in particular, in a way that helps to prevent people from committing crimes.

https://www.ted.com/talks/adam...

Re:Eye in the Sky

[Anonymous Coward]

they can follow the cars involved backwards in time to see where they started out,

So the trick to avoid being traced is to drive backwards. Like rot13, but for surveillance.

Re:Eye in the Sky

[crackspackle]

It's more than one high resolution snapshot. It's many cameras and capable of monitoring large areas simultaneously.. It's called the ARGUS-IS and it was featured on Nova and it's been around for several years. Here's a link to the video

Re:Eye in the Sky

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The problem is the potential abuse of the system -- what political operative wouldn't love to track where and who an opponent is visiting? This is the same reasoning the warrantless metadata tracking of phone calls is bad: just knowing who they talk to is valuable political information allowing counter-planning to.

They need some uncorruptible tracking and logging of all access to the system for review by judges and elected officials.

Re:Eye in the Sky

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post will get buried on slashdot by the protected arrogant entitled fools that unfortunately are the largest demographic. I understand your points and support them in full. Just because a technology could be abused is no reason not to develop it, regulate it, and use it. Also, that was an amazing TED talk!

Re:Eye in the Sky

[KGIII]

Who the hell moderated you -1? It appears that someone's fixed it (I've been on the page for a while - off doing other things and just clicked your score) but how the fuck is your post 'trolling?' Did anyone, besides me, actually watch the video? Well, I didn't watch it but it was on and I listened while I was working on a project. (It's kind of strange whenever I see a familiar face at a TED talk, by the way. I'd no idea Adam had done one.)

At any rate, it's not a bad video and I know the presenter personally. Actually, just yesterday or the day before, I was mentioning a place up near Fort Ave. and he lives right in the area. I've "known" him for a while now. Sort of... There's a familial familiarity but we're not friends or anything of the sort. It's kind of odd when things like that happen online but that's neither here nor there.

What I'm curious is how the hell is your post translated as a trolling post? You presented a fairly logical opinion. You didn't stress that anyone should be mandated to such. You opined about some risks and some benefits. You didn't even urge the degradation of rights. In fact, if anything, you indicated that there were problems and that, in order for it to work, it would have to be optional.

I can certainly say that I'd not welcome or be willing to live in a society like that. However, you're not suggesting that I do so, nor are you suggesting that everyone should. How the fuck is your post trolling? Hell, you even went on to talk about the actual problem which is crime. Yes, terrorism is a crime people. It's not some magic word that makes it something else. Terrorists commit crimes. That's kind of what they do. Blowing people up? Yeah, that's a crime. Even blowing just yourself up is technically a crime. Car bombs? Yup, that's a crime too.

So, you actually get to the root of the problem (the fact that people commit crimes) and link to a TED talk where someone talks about ways of preventing crime - with intervention and actively working to solve the problems before people are harmed by the justice system and subject to the penalties associated with that.

All I can think of is that the idiot who moderated you a troll is too stupid to realize that terrorism is a crime. "Oh no! It's something WORSE than that!!!" No folks... It's not. It's just a crime. The fact that a whole slew of idiots ramp it up a notch and want to believe it is more than a crime doesn't make it actually worse than a crime. That's how you get idiotic overreactions resulting in things like, I suspect, the moderation and stupid shit like DHS, TSA, and the very fucking subject of this thread - our own government surveilling us.

In fact, seeing as I'm here, it's BECAUSE we treat terrorism as more than what it is that we end up with knee-jerk responses and stupidity. It's because we freak the fuck out that they take the opportunity to reduce our liberties. It's because we treat it as something bigger than it is that we end up with draconian legislation and tyrannical governance. The sad thing is, your moderator is just as guilty as those who cheered on the Patriot Act. Your moderator is just as bad as those who would treat it as more than a crime.

Folks... When you treat terrorists and terrorism as more than just your ordinary criminal offense, you end up doing stupid shit. That's how they "win." They spend very little and get a huge response. They spend very little and get scads of media attention, overreaction, and fear. Treat it like the crime it is, and that includes intervention, and stop shitting your pants every time some whackjob blows up a bus full of kids. All you're doing is giving them the power to control your emotions and that's not bright.

Maybe we should stop calling them terrorists and just start calling them criminals. That's what they are. Of course, that would mean you silly humans would have to stop being panicky herd animals and there would be far fewer calls for oppressive legislation so that's right out of the question. Nah, we can't be calm, collected, rational, and show stoic resignation. Nope... We gotta run around with soiled undergarments and moralize each other to see who can most aggrieved. Damn it... We humans really are a bunch of stupid mother-fuckers. *sighs*

How long until you update your anthem?

[wardrich86]

Seems to me you guys end your anthem with something about "land of the free"? I think it's pretty safe to remove any references to that one.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is some question about the rest of that stanza - home of the brave. Maybe it should read something more like land you should flee, home of the scared. My country isn't for me, used to have liberty...

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Archangel Michael]

Well, when the presence of chalk is a "trigger" for emotional distress, "home of the brave" is no longer even close to being accurate.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of fleeing how about taking it back? There are way more American citizens then there are corrupt politicians. Wouldn't think it'd be that hard.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Surely it should be "The home of litigation"

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

eh, free to what ?

Free to be spied on? Done.

It's funny, the most free place I've lived is Singapore, known to be a police-state - but because no one breaks the law, you're free to do whatever the fuck you want. (Aside from break the law) - and even then - unless it's a law that hurts someone else ? No one gives a shit.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, do remove "land of the free", but also remove "home of the brave", for there is not brave in the land to be found to defend freedom at home.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[gstoddart]

Seems to me you guys end your anthem with something about "land of the free"? I think it's pretty safe to remove any references to that one.

For the last 15 years it's been the land of the scared and desperate who will happily give up their rights and freedoms and believe that is helping protect their rights and freedoms.

The extent to which the average American seems to accept "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is absolutely alarming.

They'll still tell you they're free, because you won't get hauled off for criticizing the government (yet), but they're ignoring that the FBI et al have decided the Constitution is just too damned inconvenient, and that the only way to have a "free" society is to live in a police state.

And pretty much all political parties are pushing for the massive surveillance society to protect them from the terrorists. Sadly, if the goal was to destroy the way of life, the battle has been lost.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about: Land you should flee, home of the grave ? :-(

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

It needs to be kept as it is.
All of it.
To scold and mock us.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans have become far too willing to believe that someone else will protect their freedom for them. Also, they are intrinsically hypocritical in that they just LOVE taking freedom away from their neighbors (gun ownership, abortion, recreational drug use, and so on).

Meanwhile, the government has been steadily soaking up more power for itself at the expense of the people, relatively unchecked.

The American people allow this. And they subscribe to the ridiculous notion that if they vote, that will somehow fix all these problems (and that people who do not vote are the real root cause for all of this). The one thing they refuse to do is give money to a political lobby that might actually do some good. So, rather than take effective action, they do basically nothing and convince themselves that all these problems are someone else's fault.

It is pretty clear which direction these winds are blowing.
 

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a new phenomenon. I remember reading the results of a poll more than 30 years ago where members of the American public were supplied with snippets from the Declaration of Independence and 70% of them thought the snippets were un-American.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about: Land you should flee, home of the grave ? :-(

[South American speaking here]

No. You're better off staying, Just trust me. America is still the Greatest One, the best achievement of mankind.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have to do to restore their freedom is to build a bold eagle drone with awesome aerial drone mating capability. Little anthem playing to the drone's receivers while being mated wouldn't hurt.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[KGIII]

The politicians have something we regular citizens lack. That is solidarity. Hurt one of them and they all jump to their defense. Harm one of us, and we try hardest to see who can piss on the body.

The thing about a union is solidarity. That whole all for one and one for all? Yeah... We gave that up. I'm not sure we ever really had it. The bit about we hang together or separately? Yeah, if there's a riot we're busy trying to steal television sets.

Seriously... Watch what happens when a politician gets shot. Then watch what happens when it's "that body down the street who's been asking for trouble." Nah, one of us dies and we fight over who gets to take their sneakers. One of them dies and they mourn together.

Solidarity... We don't have it. It's probably intentional. We keep fighting over which political football team we want to win. We keep fighting over what rights we're going to take from the other guy. We keep fighting about who has what and how much they should be giving to others. We keep fighting because someone does something that we don't like - even if it caused no harm to us. We keep fighting because we don't share the same opinions, beliefs, music style, operating system, text editor, color, manner of dress, speech patterns, and more. We keep fighting because someone has more than us. We keep fighting because someone's getting more than us.

We keep fighting because that's what we're trained to do. It stops us from taking the time to look at the things we have in common. It stops us from taking the time to think logically. We want want want want and want some more. But we give nothing back. We all pay too much and get too little and we'll be damned if we're not righteously indignant about any cause du jour. We all want to take each others liberties and impose restrictions and penalties on those we don't like. We never stop to think that those same liberties and penalties apply to us.

We are not a one people. We are not a one nation. We're a bunch of childish, greedy, petty, cowards. Welcome to America, can I take your order please?

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[dave420]

But... guns! Guns are there to protect people from the government. An armed populace can't be pushed around.

Apparently that's all nonsense.

Re:How long until you update your anthem?

[KGIII]

Where'd you get that? That's a strange conclusion to draw or you were talking to idiots. Firearms don't make one any less a coward.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they (ACTUALLY) looking at/for? Are they collecting map data like old satellites? Or what?

Re:Why?

[AHuxley]

Signals intelligence, voice prints and cell phone data they can.
New FOIA Documents Confirm FBI Used Dirtboxes on Planes Without Any Policies or Legal Guidance (MARCH 9, 2016)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Related background info on the methods "Feds gather phone data from the sky with aircraft mimicking cell towers" (Nov 14, 2014)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
The Feds Are Now Using ‘Stingrays’ in Planes to Spy on Our Phone Calls (11.14.14)
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/f...
Dirtbox (cell phone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
ie mapping out all cell users in vast areas of the US in a domestic collect it all database without needing to ask any court or request tech help via traditional telco staff.

Do they also put something in the fuel to produce

[Anonymous Coward]

Chemtrails? Also, can you please stop confirming conspiracy theories?

Enough Money

[Mikkeles]

This suggests that the FBI and DHS have more funding than they need. Perhaps it can be applied to some useful activity (such as making teacups; breaking and crushing them; mixing with water; and making more teacups).

Re:Enough Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote they use that money to go where no man has gone before.

All in big capsules, to spy a mile above the surface of the sun.
There's terrorists there, I say (well, once they head for it, but there won't be for long)

Re:Enough Money

[Anonymous Coward]

... applied to some useful activity ...

No-one ever says: hire more school teachers, improve mental/sexual health services, or fund a parolees' halfway house. Politicians's always think "War is good for business" (rule 34) but never think "Peace is good for business" (rule 35).

Much More Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be MUCH more interested in finding out how to create the trace maps, especially with animation, as they used in the article. Step by step type how-to.

  I've already got lots of flight tracking data. But, that visualization is awesome!

"Drones, Assemble!!"

[ThatsNotPudding]

Just kidding, J Edgar.

Damn you, George W. Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once we replace George W. Bush with a true progressive, all this crap will stop.

I hear there's this young Senator from Illinois that so progressive, open-minded, and well-thought-of. Joe Biden even said he's well-spoken.

Re:Damn you, George W. Bush!

[vandamme]

And he promises increased transparency of government.

Re:Damn you, George W. Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and he is even brought up to big politics by Weather Underground members! What a fine example of a mulato!

it's NOT hard to know what they are looking for

[turkeydance]

everything

those arent mufflers

[Anonymous Coward]

it's an extended exhaust stack to get the exhaust away from the optics, the heat would screw the IR band and the soot makes the glass dirty.

Re:those arent mufflers

[Sperbels]

Why not both?

Re:those arent mufflers

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Why not electric drones? The FBI is killing our children's environment!

Re:Just wait for one to fail and have to land on L

[Thanshin]

Just wait for one to fail and have to land on LSD (the road)

You're not supposed to land on LSD, you're expected to take off it.

Privacy

[digitalboss]

They can take your pay right out of your check, confiscate it without your permission, and you're worried about them flying around and taking pictures?

Map overlays

[OzPeter]

A few years ago I was watching the Killer landslide documentary. There was a brief shot of video from inside a (national guard?) helicopter than panned over the instrument panel. In that brief moment I noticed that there was video display on the instrument panel that was overlaid with a road map of the area and that the map kept correct orientation with the outside world as the helicopter banked around (which given that the roads hand been obliterated by the landslide would have been a handy thing for the pilots).

So the augmented reality displays have been around for a long long time to the point that they have filtered down to "mere" rescue choppers.

Re: Map overlays

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Those were Churchill. Notice how it kept track of individual addresses in the video.

That explains it...

[NetAlien]

Was in Baltimore on Monday and saw a couple of planes circling... they had trailing advertising banners -- what a great cover to hide their real intent...

Re:That explains it...

[vandamme]

....chemtrails??

Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

The flights are almost entirely for immigration, organized crime, and drug crimes. Only a tiny sliver is related to any terrorism missions, and those are really not done with the small planes but a citation jet or two and some PC12's. The hostage rescue team runs those mostly. They crisscross the country all the time.

The software essentially knows where it is looming, and the officer can type in an address or parcel number or any other piece of info to point the camera. It can track moving objects reasonably well at times. There are two to three cameras typically, and includes high zoom optics for a color (electro-optical or daylight) channel and a MWIR camera. The data is simply audio, location and camera orientation data, and video feeds moved to some SSD's that are offloaded after flight. The software places the actual mapping info, notes, etc right on the video.

The stingray units are often broken, and are widely considered by the operators to be useless POS that cost too much money. They are not useful for high flights, and are generally targeted at specific perps. The fears that they vacuum up a lot of data are well-founded, and the only thing that prevents misuse is filtering the data by an operator. Misuse happens.

Seeing posts about patriots keeping us safe from terrorism with these planes is hilarious. The jobs are boring...ex military pilots droning around for hours, TFO staring at large monitors in the back. The missions hardly have anything to do with terrorism...just everyday law enforcement needs like a team of cops in cars on the ground. The truth is a lot more boring than the mouth breathing posts.

Source: I installed all of the above, ride along, fix, train, etc all the way across the spectrum.

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Archangel Michael]

The flights are almost entirely for immigration, organized crime, and drug crimes.

The most organized crime family is housed in the Capital building in DC.

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are in fact done a lot with small Cessnas. They do this regularly over Baltimore and DC, probably investigating drug distribution (judging from the locations they circle). Probably ELINT and photography to track the comings and goings as well as associates. Just go to Flightradar24 and look for small planes that appear to be loitering over an area. Click on the plane, if a big donut of a flight path appears then its one of the planes. Get the "N" number, then go to the FAA registry. Google the owner and voila! FBI shell company.

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Source: I installed all of the above, ride along, fix, train, etc all the way across the spectrum.

and apparently also reddit enough to pick up annoying posting habits

source: I've always been sarcastic, even from a very young age.

edit: grammar

edit2: I know no one gives a fuck if a poster edits their post, but the poster is so self-absorbed they think they're being more honest and they believe anyone cares, and I am mocking that and them with this pretend edit

edit3: slashdot is the perfect place to mock redditors because they keep posting here bringing along with them their shitty social media cuteness

edit4: slashdot was once great but is now no better, usually

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> over Baltimore and DC, probably investigating drug distribution

What's the point then if Obama's just going to toss them back on the streets as non-violent offenders?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-obama-commutes-sentences-of-about-100-drug-offenders/2015/12/18/9b62c91c-a5a3-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html

Re: Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like disclosure? Mad that someone has an occupation you would enjoy? The salt here would make a fine brine.

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, another Demolition Man "prediction" will come true if you're being honest. All the people that believe in freedom will just live in the sewers underground where you can't track them with drones. Uggghh... rat burgers.

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, small Cessnas for day to day ops. They are all over the place. Hundreds in the fleet. At least they aren't wasting bucketloads like the feds and local police with helicopters. Total waste of cash that could be used more effectively with planes.

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[Anonymous Coward]

The War of Drugs is a front for assett Forteiture and the Private prison Industry
The War on terror is the justification for everything else.

Fail and fail

Re:Churchill navigation provides the software.

[dave420]

SO EDGY!

Old East German Stazi officers are SOOOO jealous

[houghi]

I am sure that the old East German Satzi officers are extremely jealous and now know they were just ahead of their time and the world was not yet ready for them.
They also did it for the good of the people.

Remember: the walls have ears.

Return on investment ?

[Alain Williams]

This must cost a lot. What is being gained, does it make economic sense ? If the actual results don't financially justify it - then they should not do it.

Plenty of other reasons why they should not do it, but just another slant.

Re:Return on investment ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can tell what the FBI is worried about by looking at where they focus their limited resources. Crime? Nope. Terrorism? Nope.

What they are really afraid of are the same citizens they are supposed to be serving.

Re:Return on investment ?

[crtreece]

It makes economic sense for the agency involved. "Look, we spent all of our budget, we need to request MORE money for next year."

Re:Return on investment ?

[psmoot]

What is being gained, does it make economic sense?

Yes, this is an interesting perspective. I don't get the impression law enforcement (or government in general) being terribly concerned about cost/effectiveness. It's hard in this case: how do you put a cost on a successfully prevented terrorist attack? How do you know you actually prevented anything? How about catching a bank robber? How about all the other incidental data you hoovered up in the process--how much is that worth? Especially if that is the real purpose and following suspects is just a plausible cover story.

Thing is, given what was reported in TFA, I'm not at all clear what their specific goals are and whether there was a cheaper way to achieve that result. For example, there's the weekday/weekend pattern. Maybe that's sinister, maybe they're honest that it's easier and cheaper to follow a suspect with cars on low-traffic days, cheaper and easier to use planes on weekdays. I really can't say, there's not enough information. But there sure seems to be enough information for someone to say "gee, that's odd" and ask some pointed follow-up questions.

Re:Return on investment ?

[Jeremi]

This must cost a lot. What is being gained, does it make economic sense ? If the actual results don't financially justify it - then they should not do it.

At what point do you measure the "actual results"? Any time you take that measurement, you're implicitly assuming that no further benefits will ever be obtained, and therefore the value of all potential future benefits is zero.

By that logic, nobody would ever go to school, since you can't bring in any income by studying. After the first semester, everybody would drop out because it doesn't make economic sense when you could be making money working full time at McDonald's instead.

(Note that I'm not saying that this surveillance system is actually a good thing, I'm just bothered by the short-sightedness of the previous poster's methodology)

William Proxmire, we need you now!

[Thud457]

STOOOOPID FBI, modern App appers know that to clandestinely capture cellular traffic while spying on the populace from the air, you need a blimp app, like the project LOON, not LUDDITE airplanes that require wasting precious taxpayers bodily fluids paying for human pilots to endlessly circle the city. APPS!

Re:William Proxmire, we need you now!

[Anonymous Coward]

what about our Purity of Essence?

apart from the privacy implications...

[ooloorie]

We are actually paying for this crap? We are paying for thousands of pilots and operators to fly around all day doing nothing? With no measurable results?

Re:apart from the privacy implications...

[coolmoe2]

Oh they are not just flying around doing nothing. They have some people and places im sure they keep a specific eye on. Not to mention its easier to order pizza when your not in a car in front of a targets house.

Re:apart from the privacy implications...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they are not just flying around doing nothing. They have some people and places im sure they keep a specific eye on. Not to mention its easier to order pizza when your not in a car in front of a targets house.

Yeah, but it's still easier than getting a pizza delivered to an aircraft in flight!

A "mile" high

[sycodon]

A mile is a mere 5,280 feet. not really very high for a light plane. Typical cross country flights are in the 8k foot range.

Even small planes can readily be seen identified at that altitude.

Altitude is life.

Re:A "mile" high

[Anonymous Coward]

With that altitude, it's no wonder you're down all of the time.

Re:A "mile" high

[psmoot]

My recreational pilot buddies don't typically fly much above 5000 feet. I think you need oxygen or pressurization to fly above 10,000. Getting to Truckee, CA airport (5,900 feet) actually takes some planning to make sure you don't get too high in the passes.

Re:A "mile" high

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just skiing at Breckenridge. The town is 9,600' and the ski area goes almost to 13,000'. You might want oxygen if you're sensitive to it, but you don't need it at those elevations/altitudes.

Re: A "mile" high

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally you are required to have oxygen onboard any unpressurized aircraft that goes above 10000 ft for more than 30 minutes.

Re: A "mile" high

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry...not true. 12500+ after 30 mins, and always above 14k.

Re: A "mile" high

[Anonymous Coward]

Sec. 91.211

Supplemental oxygen.

(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry--
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;

Re:A "mile" high

[RockDoctor]

Even small planes can readily be seen identified at that altitude.

"seen" and "identified" are events that follow the crucial event "noticed". If you don't notice the plane (or drone - same argument applies), then "seeing" and "identifying" don't follow.

Lost me at "Cato Institute"

[Anonymous Coward]

They lost my sympathy as soon as they cited Cato.
Even when the busted clock is correct twice a day, that's one "think tank" that should absolutely never be taken seriously or discussed in polite company.

Folks be cra-cra.

Robo-Dredd AI

[goombah99]

I'll feel safer when they combine this with AI to create a pre-crime system then deploy Robocops to snuff it out pre-emptively using an automated form of Judge Dredd instant justice decision making.

Re:Robo-Dredd AI

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'll feel safer when they combine this with AI to create a pre-crime system then deploy Robocops to snuff it out pre-emptively using an automated form of Judge Dredd instant justice decision making.

Can we get a KickStarter going for this?

Re:Robo-Dredd AI

[tnk1]

Here's the thing. Profiling and other methods that we decry the use of would probably go a long way towards cutting down on crime, including terrorism. The real problem is not that they are ineffective, but that they either harm or otherwise inconvenience completely innocent people because they would err on the side of assuming that your membership in a particular group (voluntary or involuntary) makes you inherently worth investigating. Much of what you are joking about in terms of AI and insta-justice is fictional, but the mindset behind it is not.

More realistically, if you really did forbid the entrance of Muslims and deport all of the existing Muslims in the country, you'd definitely make some dent in home grown terrorism, and you'd also drive the remaining ones underground, where communication is more difficult to coordinate except between more dedicated groups which law enforcement is better equipped to handle. There would be no more people who are radicalized by that radical preacher who was brought into your local mosque to teach publicly. The Internet would still be a problem, but you're going to be less likely to be swayed by a radical Muslim terrorist social media presence if you are not actually a believing Muslim to begin with.

Of course, you'd displace ten thousand or more innocent people for every single Muslim-type terrorist you managed to rid the country of and create an absolute human rights shitstorm. That's why it generally wouldn't work in a country that pretends to care about human rights and justice. But, nobody should confused into thinking it would be ineffective, and for that reason we should understand that being safer isn't necessarily our first priority.

We *are* safer when everyone thinks the same and looks the same. And that's why safety cannot be the point.

Re:Robo-Dredd AI

[Anonymous Coward]

More realistically, if you really did forbid the entrance of Muslims and deport all of the existing Muslims in the country, you'd definitely make some dent in home grown terrorism...

No you'd drastically increase it, as anyone who learned the expected lesson from the Holocaust would side with the Muslims.

Re:Robo-Dredd AI

[dave420]

Nope. Basic non-intelligence-based profiling is ineffective, as the terrorists will simply adapt to avoid it. Then you end up paying for the profiling while reaping none of the rewards.

Your last point is just bizarre and says a lot about how you see your fellow man.

Re:Robo-Dredd AI

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing. Profiling and other methods that we decry the use of would probably go a long way towards cutting down on crime, including terrorism. The real problem is not that they are ineffective, but that they either harm or otherwise inconvenience completely innocent people because they would err on the side of assuming that your membership in a particular group (voluntary or involuntary) makes you inherently worth investigating. Much of what you are joking about in terms of AI and insta-justice is fictional, but the mindset behind it is not.

More realistically, if you really did forbid the entrance of Muslims and deport all of the existing Muslims in the country, you'd definitely make some dent in home grown terrorism, and you'd also drive the remaining ones underground, where communication is more difficult to coordinate except between more dedicated groups which law enforcement is better equipped to handle. There would be no more people who are radicalized by that radical preacher who was brought into your local mosque to teach publicly. The Internet would still be a problem, but you're going to be less likely to be swayed by a radical Muslim terrorist social media presence if you are not actually a believing Muslim to begin with.

Of course, you'd displace ten thousand or more innocent people for every single Muslim-type terrorist you managed to rid the country of and create an absolute human rights shitstorm. That's why it generally wouldn't work in a country that pretends to care about human rights and justice. But, nobody should confused into thinking it would be ineffective, and for that reason we should understand that being safer isn't necessarily our first priority.

We *are* safer when everyone thinks the same and looks the same. And that's why safety cannot be the point.

Removing all Muslims from the USA would probably do more harm then good even if you ignore the whole human rights side of things. How many Muslims would be pissed off enough from being deported from their lives to become terrorists? How would you feel if you had a life with your wife and kids with a decent job, decent neighbours, etc, etc, and the government decided that your religion was bad and they deported you to a war torn country or one with a hard line religious government/laws?
And that is still ignoring the fact that more people are killed by home grown terrorists in the USA then Islamic terrorists...

Transponders?

[ArchieBunker]

Do these planes have ADS-B transponders? You can receive and plot flights yourself in real time with a $10 RTL dongle from eBay. Google the RTLSDR project.

Of course there is

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course there is a return on this "investment" -- otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Where you went wrong is in assuming the return was meant for you.

Don't worry

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

C'mon, they couldn't be doing anything bad or illegal or nefarious or whatever. I mean, when has the FBI ever done anything like that??

Never mind their warrantless GPS tracking, targeting WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning supporters, spying on children while using 'Roving Wiretaps', entrapment of certain Muslims, the 2008 Amendments to the Attorney General’s Guidelines, their war on whistleblowers, proxy detentions outside the US, use of the No Fly List to harass Americans, exaggerating and manufacturing terrorism plots, spying on journalists, labeling non-violent undercover investigators as terrorists, widespread abuse of Patriot Act Powers, undocumented database searches, email interception, back-dooring electronic equipment, subverting encryption protocols, etc etc etc

So yeah, I'm sure those anonymous FBI planes with muffled engines are there to help keep us free.

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Please add these to your list.

Harassment of socialists, communists, and homosexuals before/after WWII. Murder of black panthers during COINTELPRO. Collusion with organized crime. Anything that J. Edgar Hoover touched.

Gimme a break

[Anonymous Coward]

As if government spying on US citizens is anything new. I guess some people just need something to bitch and moan about and today it's scary airplanes.

Google .. Dept of State?

[jmd]

It all comes together now. Google maps and a myriad of other information gathered by Google (and others) available to the US government.

Julian Assange covered this well in the book "When Google Met WikiLeaks". When Eric Schmidt met to interview Assange he took 3 other people with him. All with ties to the Department of State.

What could go wrong?

Re:Google .. Dept of State?

[Anonymous Coward]

He works for the government:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Innovation_Advisory_Board

Cheap mod points

[Anonymous Coward]

I see more and more comments like this every day. Is this the new, cheap way to get mod points out of your fellow h8ers?

h8ers gonna h8.

I'd still choose it over any other place to live.

Re:I feel safer

[shortscruffydave]

I kind of has some experience of this, in a different theatre. Many years ago I worked in Belfast for a while (early 90s, during The Troubles). I noticed that there were often helicopters hovering around over the city centre and commented on this to a local guy that I was working with. He explained that they were basically military (or, at least, military-flown) helicopters on eavesdropping missions - flying over the city with ultra-sensitive listening kit, gathering intelligence from conversations going on between individuals.

How timely...

[psmoot]

...this should come out the same day as the FBI director saying how bad it might get if People Get Ideas about using end-to-end encryption to avoid surveillance. They're so unbelievably tone deaf about why people don't trust them when they say they need the ability to monitor everything and trust us, we wouldn't do anything nefarious with that power.

For goodness sake, throw us a bone. I know the FBI doesn't want the bad guys to know our surveillance capabilities but can you at least offer the tiniest fig leaf of accountability? Or even admit we the people have a legitimate demand for some accountability and oversight?

Re:Just wait for one to fail and have to land on L

[Joe_Dragon]

well someone did have to land there a few years ago.

This is completely wrong

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

We were told we were getting black helicopters, not Cessnas!

Re:This is it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Presumably freedom of privacy and anonimity and association are anachronisms, much like guns, in the modern day free society.

Re:I feel safer

[kilfarsnar]

I feel a little safer going about my daily activities knowing that, while nothing can prevent all possible forms of terrorism, at least someone is keeping an eye out and looking for irregulatities. The bad guys need to be perfect to escape detection, and they've shown that they really are not capable of that. I know a lot of people feel threatened by this an complain, but stop and think for a minute if you lived in a land where there was utter lawlessness and you were afraid to leave your house for fear of being robbed or assaulted. I think those people that complain are spoiled by 100+ years of success in our country and take our safeness for granted. A lot of the world is not so lucky.

I remember a time when the authorities were not monitoring people all the time and I still lived in a very safe society. So this type of surveillance is not required to have a safe society. Terrorism existed then, too. We just weren't as terrified by it.

I also keep in mind that my idea of a "bad guy" (such an unfortunate term, as there is no such thing) may be different from the FBI's idea of a "bad guy". The FBI considered Occupy Wall Street protesters to be "bad guys". On the flip side they also consider members of the Patriot movement to be "bad guys". I know it's almost inconceivable, but any one of us could be considered a "bad guy" for reasons we haven't even thought of. Therefore there needs to be a balanced solution. And over the past 15 years I think things have gotten out of balance.

If they have nothing to hide

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have nothing to hide, then why do the planes fly so high?
If they have nothing to hide, then why are mufflers used to mask their engine noise?
If they have nothing to hide, then why are these programs secret?

It's nice to use the same old B.S. argument against the authorities, which are too often used against the citizens. To be clear it's still a B.S. argument in either context. Making it shines a light on the B.S. itself, which is exactly the point.

Re:Lost me at _________

[Anonymous Coward]

People on various sides of the spectrum automatically tune out anything from the ACLU, NAACP, AFL-CIO, NRA, New York Times, Fox News, CNN, NBC, The UN, Hollywood, Gay people, "Typical" Black people, Anyone with a Southern drawl, etc.

Understanding that sometimes a group of people have biases, doesn't justify your own. Listen.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep your heads down, rabble.

Why is it called Department Of Homeland Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

This agency has absolutely no interest in defending America and every interest in watching you jack off through a window.

Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like those useless surveillance blimps. The cold hard fact is that in any given average day in the US, there isn't generally enough to warrant that level of survallance. They may want to push such technology because it COULD be useful, but mostly in more simplistic military applications.

The fact is you can't actually provide that much meaningful data just by flying around with some high end cameras and a google maps overlay. It's a fun test of technology, but it's not going to catch criminals or terrorists, just like all the NSA spying has failed to really do anything.

You can make up all the theories you want, but FBI spy planes and NSA wiretaps aren't stopping terrorists attacks or organized crime in any meaningful way and that's how we know they don't really work. It's also just common sense. Google can barely make voice commands work and they have a lot more practical and large scale modern data analysis experience than the NSA. Sure the NSA can hoard data, but nobody on earth has the code in place to do anything with data like that and they probably aren't anywhere near close. I'm sure Google could teach the NSA a lot about how to spy on people effectively, collecting data is the easy part.

Re:Waste of money

[Thud457]

It doesn't matter if they can get these pie in the sky sci-fi daydreams to work, they just need to sell it to the people who set their budget. Or just not bother to tell them about it.

Helicopters always circling Detroit

[Anonymous Coward]

There are constantly 2-3 helicopters circling Detroit every night. Does anyone know if this is related to the same thing?

Re:Just wait for one to fail and have to land on L

[number6x]

Daley did more than 'close' the airport. He had bulldozers tear up the runways in the middle of the night, without FAA permission. If he was not 'Da Boss', this would have been considered an act of terrorism.

What if a small plane had needed to make an emergency landing? His act endangered lives.

It doesn't matter though, he was able to get the contracts to redevelop the island and build a concert venue to his friends and cronies.

The AR with home owner names...

[Anonymous Coward]

That AR is creepy AF.

Please use quieter mufflers on those spy planes

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly wish they would use quiet planes with mufflers. The ones they use to buzz around my neighborhood in SF for hours on end are not at all quiet. Please, please get some decent aircraft for your surveillance, thank you.

Deploy the drones.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the FBI and DHS can do it then so can we. Deploy your (non-registered) drones and track and monitor federal authorities. Gather as much dox information on them and database it.

Re:I feel safer

[KGIII]

You look silly with that hook in your mouth. I'd almost say that there's no way in hell that they could honestly hold those opinions but, sadly, there are those who do. However, in this particular case, they're just tossing some cheap bait out there and hoping for a couple of strikes. Now you're sitting here with a hook dangling from your lip and looking silly. ;-)

Since the 1950's

[A10Mechanic]

MI-5 and by cooperation the NSA, were doing this in the 1950's, looking for local oscillators in HF radios. They were basically hunting down Soviet spies. They used airplanes and vans. What's happening today is not a new idea, just updated with better technologies. link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Feeling the Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

what a load of bull.

While they're out there

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe someone could convince them of the benefits of having an IP version of stingray, and they could be providing some free broadband to the outlying areas. Helping people in undeserved circum-city areas have faster downloads could be a great source of good will for the FBI... plus they could read all the unencrypted emails.

History repeats itself again...

[Anonymous Coward]

The smartest of you will get out, the rest will eventually be subjected to genocide.

Rations

[Anonymous Coward]

Your chocolate ration will be reduced from 30 grams to 20 grams at the start of the next week.....................

Just like the military's Angel Fire program

[Hokie Bird]

http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/s...

Re:Just wait for one to fail and have to land on L

[ls671]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Re:Just wait for one to fail and have to land on L

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit called, A public official vandalized a runway and endangered lives is the only part of that statement that matters.

the cameras are BIG

[cellocgw]

I got a tour of a camera built exactly for this purpose by MIT-Lincoln Labs a few years back: the camera was a carefully aligned collection of large-format CCDs, allowing real-time movie frame-rate imaging in the gigapixel range. plus advanced jpg-like compression to relay to ground stations in real time.
So to those comparing this w/ surveillance from cars: imagine this aircraft a km or so from your position but able to resolve your face. -- and track your exact position. Once a target's acquired, it's relatively easy to set an automatic tracker to follow without human intervention.

Re:I feel safer

[kilfarsnar]

You look silly with that hook in your mouth. I'd almost say that there's no way in hell that they could honestly hold those opinions but, sadly, there are those who do. However, in this particular case, they're just tossing some cheap bait out there and hoping for a couple of strikes. Now you're sitting here with a hook dangling from your lip and looking silly. ;-)

Heh, maybe. But as you say, there are people out there who think like the guy I responded to. And I was calm and measured in my response, so I don't think I look silly. But regardless, I got +5 Insightful. ;-)

Why is privacy so important?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand privacy from criminals, who steal your property and identity and take over your computers. But why is there such a need to keep things private from law enforcement? I know there are criminals in law enforcement, but c'mon!! The odds of the bad apples deciding to sell their airplane observations of you to their organized crime cronies seems so unlikely. I would think, the more they know, the fewer mistakes they'll make thinking you're one of the bad guys. What is the big deal about the FBI, NSA, and DHS knowing everything about you?

Kind of crappy behaviour of government controlled

[tore66]

Is there any asking why? It's a pretty invasive thing to do! USA need to get a grip on their agencies before they completely udermine democracy!

Re:I feel safer

[KGIII]

That is true but that's easy when rebuffing trolls. Hell, even *I* look insightful when rebuffing (or rebuking) trolls. ;-)