Even a 1000 meters is very short when dealing with a surveillance drone. One would need a drone and operator for ever square KM for coverage. Flight time is also an issue. It is not that practical to swap drones every hour or two.
A police officer who, would in all probabiliy be running the drone, would probably make about $50K a year. A police Helicopter pilot does not make $500K/year..
There comes the catch 22. If a warrant states that they are capturing communications on a public web site between a certain set of people haw do they do that without capturing all the communication from that web site to filter the ones they are looking for?
To them it would have been like asking the government permission to breathe.
If one stops breathing one physically dies. That is not the case with air travel. There are other means of travel within the borders of their own country than aircraft. Aircraft travel is a convenience; ot a right. Is it a right to take a loaded firearm onto an aircraft? The government has a right to make laws and regulations to keep air travel safe. That you disagree with the laws and regulations does not make them unconstitutional.
if the government is acting with more secrecy than is absolutely required for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Opinions differ on how much secrecy is "absolutely necessary". There are the opinions of those who have never worked in epionage and the opinions of those who have..
First lets look at the source. Who is identitycrisi.name and what legal background do they have to write such a piece?
Again, "due process" has to do with "arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.". The article is about the TSA and flying on an aircraft is not a right. If you don't want to follow the TSA's regulations you are free to leave the airport by means other than aircraft.
The point is that if terrorist/spys know the security procedures that can more easily find a way around them.
You also seem to not see a difference between a regulation and a law. The TSA works by regulations not laws.
If secrets are put out right after an operation is over it is very difficult to run that operation on a different subject again. To me, "as long as absolutely necessarily" is until the techniques used in the operation become obsolete. Terrorism and espionage will be a much higher threat if the techniques used to do surveillance on them become public knowledge.
Due process comes into effect when charges are laid. FISA courts come before that as they only thing they can do is grant warrants. The FISA court does not convict people.. Does a defendant have the ability to testify before his accuser when a warrant is signed? No. Where does the US Constitution say anything about the basis or preceding pertaing to granting a warrant has to be public? What laws are secret?
Classified information eventually becomes non-classified. It will come it eventually but not in time to be useful to spies and terrorists. The difference is that, in general, police departments are not up against foe with the resources of a foreign power.
You CANNOT have secret courts in a democracy, it must and will end.
I know of no place where the US Constitution bars a secret court. As such your statement is an opinion. It is my opinion that counter espionage requires secrecy. If they know where you are looking spies and terrorists will just move to another server.
What would the claims be in the law suit? The NSA has not broken any laws any using FISA warrants. It is the same as POTS companies having to cooperate with wire taps.
There is absolutely [a] need for secrecy when you are dealing with a criminal investigation. You don’t want to tip off criminals being monitored. But you can’t say, “You can never talk about this ever, for the rest of your life.”
The criminals may never know exactly how they were caught. Some of the tapped information may come out but the authorities may have enough other evidence derived from this tap not to reveal all their methods. The better criminals know how they are being monitored the better the criminals can avoid the monitoring.
As to being a benign web site, the actual site may have noting to do with the criminal activity. It may just be a transit point for communications between criminals and the authorities are after those communications.
As for the tap being on 9 months; there are criminal investigations that take years to gather enough information on enough people to take down an organization.
As for the Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment in particular;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
By law A FISA warrant is a warrant and therefore the Amendment has not been violated. How exactly is the Fourth Amendment violated?
The FISA court should be a public court, and documents should be sealed for a set period of time, [to] let people audit the actions later.
I disagree. When one make public who and how someone else it being watched it it makes the suspects more difficult yo watch in the future. Maybe this investigation didn't gather enough for a conviction but the next one might. I may agree if the set period was 30 years or so but that is not what you seem to be talking about.
I wonder if they took the 22,000 wire tap orders and an estimated 22 million phones and came up with that figure. That may not be accurate. Wire tap orders expire. There could be 12 wire tap orders to keep a 12 month watch on one phone. Multiple agencies may want information from the same phone; therefore multiple wire tap orders.
Some fracking wells are very deep and have an impermeable layer of rick between the gas shale and the water table. In this type of fracking if is almost impossible to contaminate the water table. These wells have no more impact that the average oil well.
Some fracking wells ate shallow with no impermeable layer between the gas shale and the water table. In this case, when the gas starts moving it can contaminate the aquifer. That is where the burning water issue comes in.
The problem comes in that most anti-fracking groups look at all wells as shallow wells and most industry groups look at all wells as deep wells. They are both wrong. Deep wells are safe while shallow wells should not be done.
I knew someone would say something like this but drones are not zero cost. It still requires an operator and maintenance. While drones are less expensive there is still a pretty high cost barrier to using many of them.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't. The elected masters of those spies make those decisions. That is the job of the Intelligence Oversight Committee.
Even a 1000 meters is very short when dealing with a surveillance drone. One would need a drone and operator for ever square KM for coverage. Flight time is also an issue. It is not that practical to swap drones every hour or two.
A police officer who, would in all probabiliy be running the drone, would probably make about $50K a year. A police Helicopter pilot does not make $500K/year..
The techniques are common knowledge.
That is an opinion. Most people were not aware of the phone taps in the carriers until recently.
There comes the catch 22. If a warrant states that they are capturing communications on a public web site between a certain set of people haw do they do that without capturing all the communication from that web site to filter the ones they are looking for?
To them it would have been like asking the government permission to breathe.
If one stops breathing one physically dies. That is not the case with air travel. There are other means of travel within the borders of their own country than aircraft. Aircraft travel is a convenience; ot a right. Is it a right to take a loaded firearm onto an aircraft? The government has a right to make laws and regulations to keep air travel safe. That you disagree with the laws and regulations does not make them unconstitutional.
if the government is acting with more secrecy than is absolutely required for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Opinions differ on how much secrecy is "absolutely necessary". There are the opinions of those who have never worked in epionage and the opinions of those who have..
That has nothing to do with the current conversation which is about FISA warrants.
First lets look at the source. Who is identitycrisi.name and what legal background do they have to write such a piece?
Again, "due process" has to do with "arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.". The article is about the TSA and flying on an aircraft is not a right. If you don't want to follow the TSA's regulations you are free to leave the airport by means other than aircraft.
The point is that if terrorist/spys know the security procedures that can more easily find a way around them.
You also seem to not see a difference between a regulation and a law. The TSA works by regulations not laws.
If secrets are put out right after an operation is over it is very difficult to run that operation on a different subject again. To me, "as long as absolutely necessarily" is until the techniques used in the operation become obsolete. Terrorism and espionage will be a much higher threat if the techniques used to do surveillance on them become public knowledge.
Due process comes into effect when charges are laid. FISA courts come before that as they only thing they can do is grant warrants. The FISA court does not convict people.. Does a defendant have the ability to testify before his accuser when a warrant is signed? No. Where does the US Constitution say anything about the basis or preceding pertaing to granting a warrant has to be public? What laws are secret?
A FISA warrant is a warrant.
Classified information eventually becomes non-classified. It will come it eventually but not in time to be useful to spies and terrorists. The difference is that, in general, police departments are not up against foe with the resources of a foreign power.
You CANNOT have secret courts in a democracy, it must and will end.
I know of no place where the US Constitution bars a secret court. As such your statement is an opinion. It is my opinion that counter espionage requires secrecy. If they know where you are looking spies and terrorists will just move to another server.
What would the claims be in the law suit? The NSA has not broken any laws any using FISA warrants. It is the same as POTS companies having to cooperate with wire taps.
There is absolutely [a] need for secrecy when you are dealing with a criminal investigation. You don’t want to tip off criminals being monitored. But you can’t say, “You can never talk about this ever, for the rest of your life.”
The criminals may never know exactly how they were caught. Some of the tapped information may come out but the authorities may have enough other evidence derived from this tap not to reveal all their methods. The better criminals know how they are being monitored the better the criminals can avoid the monitoring.
As to being a benign web site, the actual site may have noting to do with the criminal activity. It may just be a transit point for communications between criminals and the authorities are after those communications.
As for the tap being on 9 months; there are criminal investigations that take years to gather enough information on enough people to take down an organization.
As for the Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment in particular;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
By law A FISA warrant is a warrant and therefore the Amendment has not been violated. How exactly is the Fourth Amendment violated?
The FISA court should be a public court, and documents should be sealed for a set period of time, [to] let people audit the actions later.
I disagree. When one make public who and how someone else it being watched it it makes the suspects more difficult yo watch in the future. Maybe this investigation didn't gather enough for a conviction but the next one might. I may agree if the set period was 30 years or so but that is not what you seem to be talking about.
Sure with a range of a couple hundred feet. There is still a human operator that has to be paid for.
I wonder if they took the 22,000 wire tap orders and an estimated 22 million phones and came up with that figure. That may not be accurate. Wire tap orders expire. There could be 12 wire tap orders to keep a 12 month watch on one phone. Multiple agencies may want information from the same phone; therefore multiple wire tap orders.
Some fracking wells are very deep and have an impermeable layer of rick between the gas shale and the water table. In this type of fracking if is almost impossible to contaminate the water table. These wells have no more impact that the average oil well.
Some fracking wells ate shallow with no impermeable layer between the gas shale and the water table. In this case, when the gas starts moving it can contaminate the aquifer. That is where the burning water issue comes in.
The problem comes in that most anti-fracking groups look at all wells as shallow wells and most industry groups look at all wells as deep wells. They are both wrong. Deep wells are safe while shallow wells should not be done.
I knew someone would say something like this but drones are not zero cost. It still requires an operator and maintenance. While drones are less expensive there is still a pretty high cost barrier to using many of them.
You know I was talking about the rocker engine in the original post.
Yes but he is not selling rocket technology to others.
Munitions designations are based on possible military uses not possible civilian uses. The fact that it could be used in an ICBM makes it a munition.
So is the design for the B-1 Bomber and you can't sell that either.
Unless the buyers are on a munitions restricted list.