Slashdot Mirror
FBI Forced To Release 18 Hours of Spy Plane Footage (vice.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from Motherboard:
It's been just over a year since amateur aviation sleuths first revealed the FBI's secret aerial surveillance of the civil unrest in Baltimore, Maryland. Now, in response to a FOIA request from the ACLU, the Bureau has released more than 18 hours of aerial footage from the Baltimore protests captured by their once-secret spy planes, which regularly fly in circles above major cities and are commonly registered to fake companies.
The cache is likely the most comprehensive collection of aerial surveillance footage ever released by a US law enforcement agency... The footage shows the crowds of protesters captured in a combination of visible light and infrared spectrum video taken by the planes' wing-mounted FLIR Talon cameras. While individual faces are not clearly visible in the videos, it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future.
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspectds in serious crime investigations, according to the article, which adds that "The FBI flew their spy planes more than 3,500 times in the last six months of 2015, according to a Buzzfeed News analysis of data collected by the aircraft-tracking site FlightRadar24."
The cache is likely the most comprehensive collection of aerial surveillance footage ever released by a US law enforcement agency... The footage shows the crowds of protesters captured in a combination of visible light and infrared spectrum video taken by the planes' wing-mounted FLIR Talon cameras. While individual faces are not clearly visible in the videos, it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future.
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspectds in serious crime investigations, according to the article, which adds that "The FBI flew their spy planes more than 3,500 times in the last six months of 2015, according to a Buzzfeed News analysis of data collected by the aircraft-tracking site FlightRadar24."
Understand they professional liars, please look again at the email server testimony.
Just like in the Shooting by FBI agents in Oregon, they reduce the quality of their video capture to some grainy piece of useless crap then hand it over to the public. Do you honestly think they spent billions, and can not facially recognize people from a plane camera? They could read a newspaper in the 60's from 38000 feet up.
Now ask yourself who is authorizing of this? Why? Robert "LaVoy" anyone?
tracking where you come from and where you go...
http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/
I guess law enforcement shouldn't be able to use aircraft or cameras. Maybe they shouldn't be able to use cars or computers, either.
I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.
And people laughed at the camouflage netting over my yard...
Many of these planes also have Stingray's (cell site simulators) so they ID everyone they fly over by their smartphones, they don't need to visually ID the people with the camera's. I am a pilot and saw one of these planes orbiting the Gurnee Mills Mall (Northern Chicago suburbs - could tell as it had the odd ball (where the camera is) sticking out behind one the main wheels on the 182), just cruising around and around at low altitude a couple of months ago. Felt very disconcerting to know my and my wife's phone ID had probably been swept up in that - turned them off but was obviously too late. Land of the free...
Other flights, however, circled a single location for several hours ...
It's difficult to believe a stationary/circling aircraft is following "specific suspects in serious crime investigations". At best, that's expensive surveillance of a building.
Just because it can be done, does not mean it must be done and certainly not that it must be recorded.
Many a year ago, what happend was that if you did something, only a few people would know. Say I went to a pub, drank to much and would be singing at night. There would be some people who would wake up.and my friends would know. If I lived in a small town, the people who woke up would know me.
However after a month, they would hardly remeber the day it happened and after a few years they might have forgotten it all, including me and my friends.
If it would have been worse, people might have called the police and that could have ened in a record, but most likely in a stern talk. Where I live it could even mean a night in a cell, but no record anywhere.
Now things have changed. The thing that has changed is the recording of everything and the logging of everything and yet people still have the same mentality around privacy. The game has changes, so the same rules should not apply anymore.
So it is not that they are able to see you, it is that they are able to record you and the majority of the law has not been build around that. That is why we in Europe have a right to be forgotten. That is why to us priviacy does not end at your doorstep. What it is is the most essential right. It is so essential that it is the basis of all other rights. Take that away and all the others become useless.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
..
(HD Trailer, Bluethunder, 1983)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Maybe we deserve this world ?
"..., it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future. "
Or frighteningly easy to imagine how video could be slightly degraded for release."
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations.... then why are the registered to fake companies under fake names?
So protesters are criminals now?
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
it's frighteningly easy to imagine how cameras with a slightly improved zoom resolution and face recognition technology could be used to identify protesters in the future. That people who are destroying other people's property or stabbing someone or randomly shooting could be identified so they could face justice?
You seem to have confused the definitions of riots and protests. However, for those concerned about their identities being revealed during protests, there are some high tech devices available that can help.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspectds in serious crime investigations
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations.... then why are the registered to fake companies under fake names?
That's the easiest part to explain. Not all criminals are stupid. Some of them are capable of spotting a plane with optics and looking up a tail number. The hard part to explain is why they're gathering footage from protests. Their bullshit explanations don't wash.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They have to riot because the officials won't give them protesting permits.
"The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations"
Somehow, with all we know about how the FBI works, I find this hard to believe.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Precisely. It is one thing if you are outside, doing something wrong, and a policeman happens to be walking or driving by and sees you and reacts. Suppose, instead, that there were police permanently stationed outside your house, watching your windows, and every time you left home they followed you everywhere you went. To claim that these cases are the same is simply nonsense, and is generally recognized as such. People who are treated like this tend to get very upset about it, and complain to the press, go to court, etc. The notion that technology changes everything, that this is all OK if the police department's machines, rather than their employees, track you every second, is also nonsense, but nonsense that is unfortunately not yet as generally recognized as such.
Wearing those tend to get you beaten & arrested on the ground more than not.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The FBI says they're only using the planes to track specific suspects in serious crime investigations.... then why are the registered to fake companies under fake names?
That's the easiest part to explain. Not all criminals are stupid. Some of them are capable of spotting a plane with optics and looking up a tail number. The hard part to explain is why they're gathering footage from protests. Their bullshit explanations don't wash.
I agree. This is especially problematic with organized crime, cartels, etc. This sort of thing allows law enforcement to compartmentalize better. That is, not all investigators on a case need to know the when/where/why of special surveillance activities.
The more problematic part, and the part which gives me conflict about this (i.e., I believe law enforcement should have tools that allow them to do their jobs effectively, but I also believe that tools which promote/facilitate the erosion of civil liberties should be out of reach), is that while many people in the government are upstanding and law abiding, many are not. Remember, the employees of the federal government come from the same population in which we all live. There are good people and bad people. For every "good cop" who respects the rights of the average citizen and takes great care in discharging his or her responsibilities there is at least one "bad cop" who doesn't care or who willfully infringes on people's rights because he or she believes it is OK (e.g., the ends justify the means). We don't typically hear about the good cops and the cases with good outcomes, since those don't tend to make for good headlines. Rather we only hear about the bad episodes, of which there are plenty.
This is most definitely not an easy problem to solve.
Except the cops, who are wearing balaclavas or stormtrooper helmets and have removed their badges and IDs.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Unless you're the police
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'd rather FBI drones than BLM criminals.
A lot of people are upset at the Bureau of Land Management, but I'm on their side.
...if I had a fleet of planes in my possession that I regularly flew over cities and the planes were also registered to fake companies for the purpose of obtaining video and pictures? Would I be arrested, charged or fined for these actions? If so, then why is it acceptable for the FBI?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Times change. Everyone now lives in a very small town. You go out get drunk and make a fool of yourself then everyone will know it.
Just how do you want to put the Genie back in the bottle? Ban taking pictures in public? So when you are having a farewell dinner with a friend at a restaurant you want to be banned from taking a picture because you might catch someone in the background? Or maybe when you want to be banned from making a video of your kid playing in public park.
Or do you want to ban those pictures from the internet?
I love how it is Facebook's fault when your buddy posts a video of you with a bong in one hand and your underwear on your head.
The world has changed. You can not easily keep in touch with friends all over the world. There was a time when when a friend moved out of town you might get a Christmas card or if they where really close a letter now and then. The world does change and you must adapt to that change.
Worrying about the video from aircraft is pretty dumb. The have lots of cameras including bodycams now, aerial imagery is going to be used to keep track of things like where masses of people are and maybe vehicles. It is for broad coverage not for individuals plus the angle for face detection is terrible. Even if you are using a 45 degree slant the increase in distance will make it less than practical.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Sadly, too many "good" cops are willing to lie and conceal evidence that would expose the activities of "bad" cops.
As far as I'm concerned, that should cost them the "good cop" appellation, but somehow it never does.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
... on the tingoil hat.
Of course, to be even remotely effective it will have to be opaque to visible and infrared AND using it will have to be common enough that:
* lots of "uninteresting" people are wearing them at "interesting" events, and
* there are enough opaque-to-iR-and-visible light tents and shelters that it is common for the spooks to "lose tracking" when you go under the shade with other people and not be able to tell who is who when you lgo back out.
I don't see that first condition being met anytime soon - not unless wide-brim hats come back into fashion.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I think we all know that our governments are collecting our data on everyone in every way possible. I'm surprised they are using planes. Just use the cameras in People's cell phones. In Canada the RCMP mine cell phone data and we have planes patrolling Toronto in evenings. And to those playing Pokemon Go, you think the gaming companies are the only ones using that data you send during your hunts? This is beyond what I ever imagined after reading 1984. I think even Orwell would be surprised: People installing software on their mobile cell phones that are being used like voluntary tracking ankle bracelets. Tin Foil hat's and Fariday cages anyone?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Fixing other typos is left as an exercise for the reader.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
That truly is frightening. The FBI doing, you know, like...their job!
Their job is mass surveillance without a warrant? Well, at least we're finally being honest about it.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
For events like these, I drag out ye olde Motorola from the Reagan administration and leave the iPhone at home.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
And I probably shouldn't bother responding to stupid comments like yours since this is not about "nothing to hide". If there were 1,000 police watching the demonstrations that would be no difference than if the helicopter recorded everything.
The protestors are in public for everyone to see. That is their whole point. If you don't want to be seen then don't go to the protest.
Further, there are ALWAYS those criminals who use the excuse of protests to destroy someone else's property just for the lulz. They think it's great to stick it to the man or simply wreak havoc, completely forgetting they're destroying someone's livelihood.
This is where the police come in. They need to find out who committed the criminal act and arrest them. Whether the police visually see the event happen or it is recorded electronically the issue is the same: the act was done in the open for everyone to see. That is not the definition of "nothing to hide".
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If there were 1,000 police watching the demonstrations that would be no difference than if the helicopter recorded everything.
If there are 1000 police at a protest, then it's clear to the protesters that LEO is observing. A small drone, high above is effectively secret. LEO presence discourages (you can say intimidates) peaceful protesters from getting out of hand. A drone flying high overhead has no preventative role, it can only be punitive. Maybe more importantly, if an LEO sees you, there's small chance he will recognize you. If he recognizes you, there is small chance he will remember you next year. A drone flying over a protest, then next month's protest, and so on, with automated recognition, gets to build a database of "usual suspects." Exercising your right to free assembly and free speech should not make you a suspect.
In the U.S., police are restricted in the "searches" they can conduct without a warrant. They may conduct "reasonable" searches without a warrant because our Constitution protects against "unreasonable" searches. The police may observe activity with their eyes from the street or other public place. Technology raises other issues. The Supreme Court found it "unreasonable" to use an infrared camera to look at houses to see which ones had excess heat to identify houses that were growing marijuana and using hot grow lamps. Just about anything goes in an airport: x-rays, dogs, etc. It would be interesting to see what the Supreme Court would make of these observations. It may be that the quality of the cameras was selected precisely to stay within some perceived Constitutional limit. Violating those limits could destroy the entire case because not only the evidence gathered illegally, but all it led to ("fruit of the poisonous tree") is excluded from a trial.
FYI I used to fly a plane with "extra" antennas that we had a contract for to fly around the city looking for leaking cable TV signals.
No, dipshit. Collecting evidence on criminals destroying a city.
Fuck your false equivalence and fuck you.
Wait, when did a city get destroyed. Godzilla Lives Matter?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Modern digital surveillance technology is a kind of space-and-time machine, giving once-fleeting localised events permanence and transporting them around the world for all to see; 'forever'.
My bets guess is that after a period of destroying ourselves with this 'evidence', we will either learn to become more tolerant and fogiving of foibles and stupidity and such behaviour (the utopian version) or double-down (possibly furthered by certain exploitative political interests) and become more like societies of the past with their strict (and hypoctitical) public moralities (the dystopian one).
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
A drone flying high overhead has no preventative role, it can only be punitive.
No, it allows the police to act in a preventative way without having to risk the presence of so many officers and equipment on the ground where they're not even needed. That's the whole point. If a riot starts boiling over, move the resources to where they're needed - don't put more resources than you can afford everywhere, even where they're not needed, just in case. And if you can spot a group of people lighting up molotov cocktails down the block before those "protesters" have managed to burn down a whole row of businesses, you are very much in preventative mode.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh, so they released footage taken from the supposedly non-existent planes?
The planes that they denied existed until they were forced to admit that they were in fact real and conducting surveillance of American cities?
You mean those planes?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Man that's a walk even for Godzilla. CA yeah I can see that but Detroit? Hope he has a fitbit.
"The FBI says..."
That's how modern-day fairy tales begin.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.
In theory, law is paramount, but we are governed by the rule of lawmakers not law. Our entire society is strangled by our self-fulfilling legal system. Look at how... well... EVERYTHING runs. EULAs. Disclaimers. TV commercials that flash miniscule paragraphs on the screen. Mountains of paperwork to do anything. Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits. We are steeped in a society that lawyers have created, and manage, and ensure that we stay that way. Don't like something? Create a new law to make it legal. (not you or me... people with power) Everything is based on precedent. If someone got away with it once, it's probably OK to do again - and the opposite holds true as well. A police officer can chase you and if you run, you have broken the law (fleeing). Laws laws laws laws. I GUARANTEE YOU that these spy planes are legal according to some law that was passed at some point. Don't think so, well, you'll have to prove it. By then the laws will have been changed.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well written Houghi. This reminds me of when I was a kid ('60s), and the school teachers used to try to scare us about how doing bad things would go on our "permanent record". At the time, there was no such thing, and just a scare tactic. Not so much anymore.
Just another day in Paradise
Flowers by Irene
Female Body Inspector
Just another day in Paradise
I'd be in favor of this treatment personally - I can't afford armed personal security on my salary. As long as they follow the law and don't violate my actual privacy by doing things like trespassing, peeping in windows, and so on heck yes. I want a minimum of a 4 person armed force, county deputies preferred.
Or perhaps identifying his supporters so that we know who's too stupid to be allowed a vote.
That's simple, just don't allow ACs.
Just another day in Paradise
Law enforcement is around the 40th most dangerous job...
Meanwhile being a barber is way way more dangerous
Is that what they mean by "buzz kill"?
Just another day in Paradise
With so much surveillance technology being deployed I wonder if any has ever been used to spot taggers in progress. I see lots of cameras being deployed everywhere, there is also lots of youtube footage of all kinds of crazy stuff but none (at least I haven't found any) of graffiti taggers in progress. I see bridges and signs with extremely difficult access all marked up, I'm amazed they manage to reach these places and return safely instead of going splat in the middle lanes of a freeway.
mfwright@batnet.com
Under the State Constitution, it's illegal for the FBI to do this as well.
However, it is legal for them to do it over military reservations, federal parks, and public waterways.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where in that does it say 'permit required' for your rights?
Seriously.. where the fuck does it say that the government can stop you from assembling and petitioning your own government??
That's right.. It does not. Go to North Korea if you don't like it, or, vote for people who will piss off the rest of your fellow citizens less.
Otherwise just accept the fact that sometimes people who are upset will inconvenience you.
"What matters is the legality in which they are capturing video and audio, and the extent in which they are clearly authorized to use it against you."
Outside in public is public. How is this so hard to understand. You are allowed to record video in public and take pictures in public. You have no privacy in public....
What do you not understand about this?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If you're going to join a protest demonstration, make sure you've shaved, shine your shoes, comb your hair, cover up your more offensive tattoos, wear presentable clothes (if at all possible wear a tie). Comport yourself with quiet dignity throughout the demonstration. Also make sure any slogans you hold are correctly spelled.
It could swing the jury your way at trial years later when the footage is produced in court as part of examination of your character.
So, the looting and violence aren't reasons?
That's the thing. Instead of saying that, they made up vague bullshit. Even I could dream up better bullshit.
Why don't you just blame Obama for it while you're at it? What? He's in charge of the FBI and you certainly would blame the leadership if it was someone you didn't like.
I am not an Obama fan. I did not vote for Obama. I registered as a Democrat for long enough to support Bernie, and have already re-registered as no party preference so as not to be confused with the Democrats. Hope this helps.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Republicans have been trying to get shit pinned on her for decades. They've spend millions of dollars, enlisted Congress in endless hearings, and conducted mass media campaigns, and so far nada. Empirically, they can't pin shit on her.
She lies sometimes, yes. So does almost every other politician out there. She's pretty honest by politician standards, far more honest than Trump.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sorry. With the recent decline of real journalists covering our asses at government events (affording government more opportunities to get corrupt), and the un-trust-worthiness of our government and corporations, the coming of "Big Brother" is upon us!
Are YOU willing to be subjugated?
Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Well, you've got her campaign's talking points down pat. Whenever they've done something wrong, it's always been a "vast right wing conspiracy" or some such bullshit. It's always somebody else's fault, and even when the FBI director says she screwed up, she can't admit it. But go ahead and believe that they were flat broke when they left the White House, and that she was shot at in Bosnia, and named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Sure those are mostly little fibs, but it's a congenital pattern with her.
Just another day in Paradise
If there's a big protest, then sending a lot of police to keep an eye on it makes sense. The police on the ground have the potential to either keep things peaceful or cut off violence before it spreads. If someone starts lighting molotov cocktails, a few police on the scene are going to be much more useful than someone flying around the sky and trying to watch everything at once. (At least if the guy with the firebombs isn't FBI.)
If there's cameras watching the whole protest, and there aren't eyes on them, then they're pretty much useless in preventing anything from happening. If someone does happen to catch a view of the firebombers, there's not likely to be time to direct officers to the area before the situation goes out of control.
Unless, of course, there's enough police to distribute them over the protest area, which is basically what GP thought would be better than a surveillance aircraft.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you have to go back 50 years for an example, you're not talking about a big problem.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Suppose, instead, that there were police permanently stationed outside your house, watching your windows, and every time you left home they followed you everywhere you went.
Well, that would have stopped the guy that tried to break into my house early one morning when I was asleep in bed, and would also have stopped me from getting mugged that time walking home at night, so yeah, I'd say that would be a good thing!
It's not her campaign talking points, it's my own observation. When the Clintons have been accused of something seriously wrong, it's normally been a case of people who hate them, since they start rumors they can't prove. In some cases, it is a right-wing conspiracy, like the endless Benghazi hearings that established that a bunch of Republicans with subpoena powers and effectively unlimited resources couldn't find anything she did wrong.
Are you aware of any politicians who are scrupulously honest? Take a look at Politifact: they rate some of what Clinton has said as lies and IIRC even a "pants on fire" or two. She's still one of the most honest politicians of this campaign season (Sanders and Kasich are rated right up there, also).
She's not perfect, but she's one of the better Presidential candidates I've seen in my lifetime. You are free to think this is a sad commentary on Presidential candidates, but realistically she's competent and relatively honest.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thanks for the chuckle, my friend!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.