As I said on the Wired article, what should Google, a US company, have done when what are likely state or state-backed Chinese hackers thoroughly compromise one of their services?
*Not* turn to "U.S. authorities”? Do nothing? It's certainly bizarre when a US company under attack by another nation-state would be expected to *not* involve our own government.
Guess what: our intelligence activities and capabilities are secret, not because we want to "hide them from the public", but because they necessarily remain secret for the precise reasons the courts ruled the way they did in this case: so that our ADVERSARIES don't understand our sources, methods, capabilities, and responses.
I know most people here believe the NSA is evil, instead of looking across the Pacific to a country that can scarcely wait to displace the US as a global power, while keeping a firm stranglehold on its citizens. I imagine there will be many tired references to the Utah Data Center in the comments section here, too, from people who completely misunderstand the law, and NSA's purpose and missions.
Just because they are behind doesn't mean they cannot prioritize or start anew.
No one considers your analysis serious simply because you overlook that plain, simple fact. A backlog does not logically exclude a recent focus.
Wow...you missed the point entirely.
I'm not saying the Air Force has to make it through its entire backlog of drone data before it can begin to look at other data. I'm saying that the Air Force can't even manage the data it's collecting during wartime operations, and you think that suddenly there's going to be a new focus to spy on Americans by way of an exemption in a minimization procedure?
Seriously?
And I already addressed the predictable automation argument in the post to which you replied. It's not the technology or lack thereof that prevents government from violating the law; it's the law itself.
Similarly, because the possibility of greater abuses by another system(s) already in existence, we should overlook the abuses of a current, newer system? That's an absurd argument.
Didn't say that at all. Arguments against the use of "drones" or any other technology are simply an argument against technology...which is exactly what you lay bare later:
US military sat systems have limitations and focus that prevent them from focused information gathering and tracking. US military manned flights similar have a problem--fuel costs, manpower, feedback from the pilots
(Drones also have pilots...)
(aka evidence of abuse) of the system. These techs suck for anything more than broad searches really for one reason or the other, not to mention most military craft are, well, rather noticeable in the civilian world. Drones lack these issues entirely. You're seriously underestimating what is current done with what will be done, as well as current limitations in what isn't done, with what will be done.
Now you're making an argument based purely on the notion that it's not THE LAW which limits abuse of other technologies, but technological/cost/concealment/etc. limitations. What you're saying, essentially, is the only reason anyone working on behalf of government would do the "right thing" is because the might be seen or caught doing the "wrong thing", and that if there is less of a chance of being caught violating the law or the Constitution, then obviously they are going to do just that.
When I said "shameful and sad", it's this to which I was referring: the notion that people like you believe the default state is abuse and that our system of law alone is powerless to stop it, when in reality, it's the other way around.
A 3 month window is ridiculous and is a Constitutional violation in my book.
In your book. The fact is there are all kinds of deadlines and timetables on these sorts of things, because it takes time to do things. Given that these and other systems WILL be used for civil assistance, training, force protection, etc., and mistakes WILL happen — and no, they won't be "intentional" mistakes — what do you propose the timeline for mitigation should be? 9 minutes? When does the deadline for making a determination suddenly become "unconstitutional"?
The fact of the matter is that it's not a "Constitutional violation" unless a challenge is brought and a court says it is. Simply saying "I feel this is clearly illegal or unconstitutional!" doesn't make it so. And before you say something like "After 9/11, all the courts always side with the government anyway," that is utterly, ridiculously false. The courts have routinely sided against government (e.g., recent SCOTUS GPS decision) — you just remember when they don't.
Nearly *every* spying or police force issues where it has been said they wouldn't do, couldn't do, has been proven false since 9/11.
But that's precisely the way our framework of law and judicial oversight works. A question arises over whether a government activity is appropriate, the courts — often many layers of courts — examine the activity, and decide one way or the other. The courts do not always side with government, as can be seen by the recent SCOTUS GPS ruling — and even that ruling some take issue with, because it doesn't speak explicitly to integrated GPS capabilities in vehicles. Technology is moving faster than ever, more and more information is stored in an electronic form, the government has more technical capabilities than ever, and "the people" learn more, faster, and in more detail, about the activities of government than at any time in the history of our country.
This discussion is case-in-point. The problem is that people constantly take something like the international terrorism and international narcotics exemption and take it to mean that it must be there to allow for illegal spying, all the time. Whenever a surveillance capability is used domestically for any purpose, even those you might agree with, there is always a chance that a US Person may be collected upon — though the courts have upheld that surveillance from aircraft does not constitute a search, the US military is prohibited from engaging in routine law enforcement activities by a comprehensive and well-understood body of statute and case law. Drones are here — they're another technology. Do we enjoin our own military from flying manned aircraft over our own country? What prevents abuse? The same thing that always has: the law. That's the system we have. Does it mean no government activity has ever constituted an abuse? No, but it also doesn't mean all activities are abuse, all the time. What it means is that we develop regulations, rules, guidance, and safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate abuse.
The rule of law is a core framework of our society. In this example, we can clearly see an extension of that process which seeks to expressly specify what happens IF information relating to a US Person is encountered during the course of other activities, such as routine operations or assistance to civil authorities.
Furthermore, this is not even just anything that might be suspicious seen during operations. It's only "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," which is a very narrow scope under US law.
Cue the conspiracy theory: "But, but, but, the big bad Utah Data Center is going to mine this data automatically! The idea is to not need people to analyze this footage! The Air Force is going to blanket the nation in drones, and the NSA is going to analyze it all with computers! The exception for international terrorism and narcotics is just a subterfuge, a sleight of hand, to distract us from their true intent!"
Yes, people really think this. It would be amusing if it weren't so shameful and sad.
To say nothing of the US military satellite systems and manned US military aircraft that fly over the US every day, and have been used in civil assistance and force protection for decades. But hey, this is the slashdot comments section: facts and sense need not apply!
What's disturbing here is that people think that standard procedures designed to prevent unauthorized collection, and address it if it occurs, is really intended to be a secret way to constantly spy on Americans for no reason.
Keep in mind that the courts have repeatedly upheld that visualization of a person or an exterior area from an aircraft does not constitute a search. Also, the exceptions here are for INTERNATIONAL terrorism and INTERNATIONAL narcotics trafficking, two things that have a very specific meaning under US law and military doctrine. I know people will immediately say something like, "But InfoWars told me that DHS has declared anyone with an XYZ bumper sticker might be a terrorist!" or "Some guy smoking a joint in his yard could now get busted by a drone!" but that's not what international terrorism or narcotics means.
So given that the whole function of such UAS in American airspace is routine civil assistance and nothing nefarious, you're really telling me that if a drone did happen to see "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," that you think it's just a fab idea to do nothing about it? More in my other post.
...considering that the reason that mitigation and minimization procedures exist in the first place is to address and prevent abuse, or accidental or improper collection, not encourage it.
I would also point out that the US has manned aircraft which fly over the US all the time, many with sophisticated ISR capabilities — and which have similar sets of processes to prevent improper uses.
I would also point out that the military and intelligence agencies like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency aid law enforcement and civil authorities all the time, e.g., for things like natural disasters and wildfires — this includes planes, space assets, and yes, even drones.
The reason the procedures and processes discussed in this article exist in the first place is precisely to prevent unauthorized or improper use. The idea isn't to say, hey, everything is an "accident", so we will look at anything, all the time (as some people here will no doubt believe). The idea is that IF data on US Persons is obtained improperly, it should be deleted — unless it involves "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities."
In DOD-speak, INTERNATIONAL narcotics and terrorism means something very specific. It doesn't mean the Air Force or anyone else is going to blanket the US with drones, and use provisions designed to PREVENT improper activities as an excuse to "accidentally" spy on Americans.
That people believe this is somehow a secret plot designed to let the Air Force, of all things, spy on Americans for no reason, is a very sad thing to me. This may come as a surprise to you, but many in the US military and the government actually take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and to the people of the United States seriously.
If your next question is, "If they take it seriously, they wouldn't be letting this happen!!" I would direct you to re-read my post more carefully.
"A US military spy plane illegally entered Chinese airspace and collided with a Chinese interceptor, killing the Chinese pilot."
Really?
That's not exactly correct. US surveillance aircraft do not violate China's sovereign airspace, but Chinese fighters would routinely harass US aircraft in what China claims as an "exclusive economic zone" in the South China Sea, not recognized by the US, and not considered sovereign airspace. "The PRC interprets the Convention as allowing it to preclude other nations' military operations within this area, while the United States maintains that the Convention grants free navigation for all countries' aircraft and ships, including military aircraft and ships, within a country's exclusive economic zone."
China's fighters routinely buzzed US EP-3's, and if you're actually asserting that an EP-3 is maneuverable enough to cause a collision with a Chinese J-8 fighter, then you are either deluded, or a member of the PRC's 50 Cent Party. The US EP-3 had to enter Chinese airspace in order to conduct an unauthorized emergency landing on Hainan Island, after which NSA's secure operating system was completely compromised by China, with a US Admiral later observing, “It was grim," and a US official responding to a question of whether China could be "that good" by saying, “they only invented gunpowder in the tenth century and built the bomb in 1965. I’d say, ‘Can you read Chinese?’ We don’t even know the Chinese pictograph for ‘Happy hour.’"
So yeah, go ahead and assert that China would somehow be a better global steward of human rights.
Just because content owners have their own motives doesn't invalidate legitimate cyber threats, nor does it mean that very real military, industrial, and academic cyber threats don't exist. Also, anyone paying attention realizes that the lines between governments, criminals, espionage, and activists blurs in the cyber realm. Responding to cyber threats, no matter where they originate or why, takes the same form.
I'm sure it's better to have zero coordination because the slashdot crowd thinks it's a plot to take away their ability to pirate copyrighted content.
That, or continue pretending they don't exist, or that when they do it's all a secret US government plot to oppress its citizens. Yeah, I'm sure that's somehow the better option.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be adversaries, and people want to do harm to the United States, in an environment where people like you firmly believe that everything must be a "false flag" operation designed to somehow take away your rights.
Are you done arguing with your person version of me? This jet isn't needed, and was a waste of billions. Period. I can state that without going off on the ignorant tangent you did.
So, you believe the statement, "War mongers like you really have no shame do you?" in response to my comment, which had nothing to do with "war mongering", is appropriate? As I said before, do you think that our principles and interests and those of our allies will stand on their own without protection? Have you been paying attention to China's global expansion?
"Are you done arguing with your version of me," indeed.
And if I'm somehow supposed to read between the lines an alternate translation that somehow means, "This jet isn't needed, and was a waste of billions," can you explain to me how the fifth-generation fighters of Russia and China don't deserve any sort of United States/Western equivalent counter-capability?
Yes, they're behind us, but that doesn't mean there is no threat to the ability of the US and its allies to maintain air superiority in any conflict. Just because they're not used in a combat setting right at this very moment doesn't in any way translate to "isn't needed". Again, why do you think Russia and China have developed fifth-generation stealth fighters?
Oh yeah, I forgot — the world we live in would be a happy, peaceful utopia if not for the US. The US is the sole source of evil in the world, and the only adversaries we do have are enemies we have made or manufactured ourselves.
It must be nice to live in that place where you can lay blame on the US, because it means you don't have to consider the reality that there are evil people and ideals in the world, and that principles of freedom need to be protected.
...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this is just a figment of the imagination then? And they certainly didn't have any "help"...
Joe McCarthy was a US Senator. The "H" in "HUAC" stands for "House [of Representatives]".
Also, the VENONA decrypts revealed Communists and paid Soviet spies at all levels of US government.
This has nothing to do with a war on anything — climate change has been considered a national security threat for well over a decade and through multiple presidential administrations, and is not new.
DOD and the military services (particularly the Navy) has been saying that climate change is a major national security threat for YEARS. This is NOT NEW, and it's not about the "war on terror", or anything else, "running out of steam".
"Climate change", as a measurable phenomenon with very real national security implications, is real. The political debacle which claims it is caused mostly or exclusively by humans, and therefore we need to decimate/tax/etc. industrial capability even as developing nations whose greenhouse gas emissions are skyrocketing do absolutely nothing, is the travesty here.
Except that is not how the law works for equipment or items. If you rent or lease a property and physically reside in it, yes, a warrant generally has to be served to you as the resident. This is not the same situation, and again, it's not an illegal or inappropriate seizure (or return). The law is well-understood in this area. That doesn't mean there isn't room for debate about the implications of seizing a server which serves a lot more users and functions than are related to the target of the warrant, but it doesn't change the other facts I've laid out.
Taking your analogy, the FBI doesn't have to identify themselves or serve the warrant to anyone but the property/facility owner -- which they did. How do you think the FBI got into a secure facility? By breaking in? I understand the argument you're making, and it may be courteous to engage the service provider more than was done here, but this search and the process was legal.
The property owner, XO Communications, was served, and the warrant was very specific. It was for a single server associated with a single IP, and for messages or traffic related to the bomb threats on that server. The fact that Riseup or anyone else said, "You won't find anything," is meaningless. This was not an illegal search nor seizure, and the FBI did not unlawfully enter the premises. The property owner is XO Communications. This is just a (likely intentional) attempt to make the FBI look bad (see the submitter) -- that's fine and certainly their right, but there was no abuse or illegal activity on the part of the FBI here. Again, we can have the larger discussions about whether the seizure was over-broad, but it was not illegal nor unconstitutional.
They're not the facility owner. XO Communiations is, and they're the only ones who need to be notified. How do you think the FBI got into a secure colo facility?
How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.
For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so? Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.
In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.
What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...
Can you imagine a world where it's possible for there to actually be ideals that are opposed to principles of freedom and democracy, and where the US isn't to blame for everything bad that happens? I know this would be a stretch from your comfortable worldview which probably holds that the only reason the US and/or West has any "enemies" is because we make them ourselves. I'm sure if the US didn't exist after WWII, Western European nations would all be in a happy place and the world would be a peaceful utopia.
Wake up. The US isn't perfect and the world is a complex place, but I hope you never have to live under the tyranny and oppression which you indirectly and implicitly defend with ignorant comments implying that the US just "makes up" adversaries for no good reason than to make war and line pockets. Take a look at history. Or reality. Either would do.
"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."
"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."
The United States is incredibly dependent on its space assets in support of national objectives. Directed energy weapons can not only provide offensive ASAT capabilities, but can serve as a significant defense against missile- or even space-based kinetic ASAT weapons. The advantage of a directed energy weapon is that it has the ability to travel at the speed of light and target missiles during their vulnerable boost phase within seconds. During the 1990s and 2000s, the United States pursued directed energy weapons based on megawatt-class chemical lasers. Two of systems, the Airborne Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL), were complementary, but never made it beyond the early testing phase.
The concept of the Airborne Laser came to fruition on a modified Boeing 747 known as the YAL-1A Airborne Laser Testbed (ABLT). In early 2010, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that ABLT successfully destroyed two test missiles, saying at the time that "The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies." Unfortunately, ABLT was $4 billion over budget and eight years behind schedule. Political and economic realities meant that the US could "no longer continue to do everything and explore every potential technology". On February 14, 2012, MDA announced that the ABLT program was terminated, transitioning into long-term storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis Monthan AFB — "the Boneyard".
The Space-Based Laser (SBL) concept is the notion of locating a high-powered laser in space, with a similar ability to target missiles in their boost phase. A constellation of 20 SBLs would be able to provide continuous global coverage, and target nearly any launch -- including ASAT weapons. A test firing of a Space-Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment (SBL-IFX) was originally schedule for 2012 to demonstrate SBL's capabilities. This project became so complex and expensive that MDA suspended research and development in 2002 — another victim of economic priorities, and a desire to focus resources on existing, proven kinetic systems.
If such systems are thought to have so much potential and capability, why are they no longer pursued? The answer is primarily one of cost. Further, if the US possessed such a comprehensive anti-missile and anti-ASAT capability, it is unlikely that an adversary would use a kinetic ASAT weapon. As adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran turn to cyber, it becomes more likely that cyber, conventional jamming, and EW capabilities would be used to target US space systems. It is reasonable that the US response should be in kind. One example: China is currently fielding the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). Instead of using complicated missile defense systems or directed energy weapons to target it, and the current US strategy is indeed one of jam, spoof — and then shoot, if necessary, with the idea being to "break as many links as possible" in the chain, including via cyber and EW. Cyber can act as a significant force multiplier against even conventional weapons systems — which can work both for and against us. China has already demonstrated the potential effectiveness of cyber capabilities against US space systems. Resources devoted to enhancing our offensive and defensive cyber capabilities in the context of space systems and missile defense is money well spent.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said on the Wired article, what should Google, a US company, have done when what are likely state or state-backed Chinese hackers thoroughly compromise one of their services?
*Not* turn to "U.S. authorities”? Do nothing? It's certainly bizarre when a US company under attack by another nation-state would be expected to *not* involve our own government.
Guess what: our intelligence activities and capabilities are secret, not because we want to "hide them from the public", but because they necessarily remain secret for the precise reasons the courts ruled the way they did in this case: so that our ADVERSARIES don't understand our sources, methods, capabilities, and responses.
I know most people here believe the NSA is evil, instead of looking across the Pacific to a country that can scarcely wait to displace the US as a global power, while keeping a firm stranglehold on its citizens. I imagine there will be many tired references to the Utah Data Center in the comments section here, too, from people who completely misunderstand the law, and NSA's purpose and missions.
Just because they are behind doesn't mean they cannot prioritize or start anew.
No one considers your analysis serious simply because you overlook that plain, simple fact. A backlog does not logically exclude a recent focus.
Wow...you missed the point entirely.
I'm not saying the Air Force has to make it through its entire backlog of drone data before it can begin to look at other data. I'm saying that the Air Force can't even manage the data it's collecting during wartime operations, and you think that suddenly there's going to be a new focus to spy on Americans by way of an exemption in a minimization procedure?
Seriously?
And I already addressed the predictable automation argument in the post to which you replied. It's not the technology or lack thereof that prevents government from violating the law; it's the law itself.
Similarly, because the possibility of greater abuses by another system(s) already in existence, we should overlook the abuses of a current, newer system? That's an absurd argument.
Didn't say that at all. Arguments against the use of "drones" or any other technology are simply an argument against technology...which is exactly what you lay bare later:
US military sat systems have limitations and focus that prevent them from focused information gathering and tracking. US military manned flights similar have a problem--fuel costs, manpower, feedback from the pilots
(Drones also have pilots...)
(aka evidence of abuse) of the system. These techs suck for anything more than broad searches really for one reason or the other, not to mention most military craft are, well, rather noticeable in the civilian world. Drones lack these issues entirely. You're seriously underestimating what is current done with what will be done, as well as current limitations in what isn't done, with what will be done.
Now you're making an argument based purely on the notion that it's not THE LAW which limits abuse of other technologies, but technological/cost/concealment/etc. limitations. What you're saying, essentially, is the only reason anyone working on behalf of government would do the "right thing" is because the might be seen or caught doing the "wrong thing", and that if there is less of a chance of being caught violating the law or the Constitution, then obviously they are going to do just that.
When I said "shameful and sad", it's this to which I was referring: the notion that people like you believe the default state is abuse and that our system of law alone is powerless to stop it, when in reality, it's the other way around.
A 3 month window is ridiculous and is a Constitutional violation in my book.
In your book. The fact is there are all kinds of deadlines and timetables on these sorts of things, because it takes time to do things. Given that these and other systems WILL be used for civil assistance, training, force protection, etc., and mistakes WILL happen — and no, they won't be "intentional" mistakes — what do you propose the timeline for mitigation should be? 9 minutes? When does the deadline for making a determination suddenly become "unconstitutional"?
The fact of the matter is that it's not a "Constitutional violation" unless a challenge is brought and a court says it is. Simply saying "I feel this is clearly illegal or unconstitutional!" doesn't make it so. And before you say something like "After 9/11, all the courts always side with the government anyway," that is utterly, ridiculously false. The courts have routinely sided against government (e.g., recent SCOTUS GPS decision) — you just remember when they don't.
Nearly *every* spying or police force issues where it has been said they wouldn't do, couldn't do, has been proven false since 9/11.
[Citation needed]
Note: this is rhetorical. ANY government c
But that's precisely the way our framework of law and judicial oversight works. A question arises over whether a government activity is appropriate, the courts — often many layers of courts — examine the activity, and decide one way or the other. The courts do not always side with government, as can be seen by the recent SCOTUS GPS ruling — and even that ruling some take issue with, because it doesn't speak explicitly to integrated GPS capabilities in vehicles. Technology is moving faster than ever, more and more information is stored in an electronic form, the government has more technical capabilities than ever, and "the people" learn more, faster, and in more detail, about the activities of government than at any time in the history of our country.
This discussion is case-in-point. The problem is that people constantly take something like the international terrorism and international narcotics exemption and take it to mean that it must be there to allow for illegal spying, all the time. Whenever a surveillance capability is used domestically for any purpose, even those you might agree with, there is always a chance that a US Person may be collected upon — though the courts have upheld that surveillance from aircraft does not constitute a search, the US military is prohibited from engaging in routine law enforcement activities by a comprehensive and well-understood body of statute and case law. Drones are here — they're another technology. Do we enjoin our own military from flying manned aircraft over our own country? What prevents abuse? The same thing that always has: the law. That's the system we have. Does it mean no government activity has ever constituted an abuse? No, but it also doesn't mean all activities are abuse, all the time. What it means is that we develop regulations, rules, guidance, and safeguards to prevent, minimize, or mitigate abuse.
The rule of law is a core framework of our society. In this example, we can clearly see an extension of that process which seeks to expressly specify what happens IF information relating to a US Person is encountered during the course of other activities, such as routine operations or assistance to civil authorities.
Jeng, you're talking to people who think that the Air Force, which currently is YEARS behind on the drone data it already has, now has nothing better to do than spy on Americans.
Furthermore, this is not even just anything that might be suspicious seen during operations. It's only "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," which is a very narrow scope under US law.
Cue the conspiracy theory: "But, but, but, the big bad Utah Data Center is going to mine this data automatically! The idea is to not need people to analyze this footage! The Air Force is going to blanket the nation in drones, and the NSA is going to analyze it all with computers! The exception for international terrorism and narcotics is just a subterfuge, a sleight of hand, to distract us from their true intent!"
Yes, people really think this. It would be amusing if it weren't so shameful and sad.
To say nothing of the US military satellite systems and manned US military aircraft that fly over the US every day, and have been used in civil assistance and force protection for decades. But hey, this is the slashdot comments section: facts and sense need not apply!
What's disturbing here is that people think that standard procedures designed to prevent unauthorized collection, and address it if it occurs, is really intended to be a secret way to constantly spy on Americans for no reason.
Keep in mind that the courts have repeatedly upheld that visualization of a person or an exterior area from an aircraft does not constitute a search. Also, the exceptions here are for INTERNATIONAL terrorism and INTERNATIONAL narcotics trafficking, two things that have a very specific meaning under US law and military doctrine. I know people will immediately say something like, "But InfoWars told me that DHS has declared anyone with an XYZ bumper sticker might be a terrorist!" or "Some guy smoking a joint in his yard could now get busted by a drone!" but that's not what international terrorism or narcotics means.
So given that the whole function of such UAS in American airspace is routine civil assistance and nothing nefarious, you're really telling me that if a drone did happen to see "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities," that you think it's just a fab idea to do nothing about it? More in my other post.
...considering that the reason that mitigation and minimization procedures exist in the first place is to address and prevent abuse, or accidental or improper collection, not encourage it.
I would also point out that the US has manned aircraft which fly over the US all the time, many with sophisticated ISR capabilities — and which have similar sets of processes to prevent improper uses.
I would also point out that the military and intelligence agencies like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency aid law enforcement and civil authorities all the time, e.g., for things like natural disasters and wildfires — this includes planes, space assets, and yes, even drones.
The reason the procedures and processes discussed in this article exist in the first place is precisely to prevent unauthorized or improper use.
The idea isn't to say, hey, everything is an "accident", so we will look at anything, all the time (as some people here will no doubt believe). The idea is that IF data on US Persons is obtained improperly, it should be deleted — unless it involves "persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics activities."
In DOD-speak, INTERNATIONAL narcotics and terrorism means something very specific. It doesn't mean the Air Force or anyone else is going to blanket the US with drones, and use provisions designed to PREVENT improper activities as an excuse to "accidentally" spy on Americans.
That people believe this is somehow a secret plot designed to let the Air Force, of all things, spy on Americans for no reason, is a very sad thing to me. This may come as a surprise to you, but many in the US military and the government actually take their obligations to the law, the Constitution, and to the people of the United States seriously.
If your next question is, "If they take it seriously, they wouldn't be letting this happen!!" I would direct you to re-read my post more carefully.
Given the narrow scope of the question, isn't this precisely how we expect the deliberative process on such a question to work?
Or is the answer always, "never"?
"A US military spy plane illegally entered Chinese airspace and collided with a Chinese interceptor, killing the Chinese pilot."
Really?
That's not exactly correct. US surveillance aircraft do not violate China's sovereign airspace, but Chinese fighters would routinely harass US aircraft in what China claims as an "exclusive economic zone" in the South China Sea, not recognized by the US, and not considered sovereign airspace. "The PRC interprets the Convention as allowing it to preclude other nations' military operations within this area, while the United States maintains that the Convention grants free navigation for all countries' aircraft and ships, including military aircraft and ships, within a country's exclusive economic zone."
China's fighters routinely buzzed US EP-3's, and if you're actually asserting that an EP-3 is maneuverable enough to cause a collision with a Chinese J-8 fighter, then you are either deluded, or a member of the PRC's 50 Cent Party. The US EP-3 had to enter Chinese airspace in order to conduct an unauthorized emergency landing on Hainan Island, after which NSA's secure operating system was completely compromised by China, with a US Admiral later observing, “It was grim," and a US official responding to a question of whether China could be "that good" by saying, “they only invented gunpowder in the tenth century and built the bomb in 1965. I’d say, ‘Can you read Chinese?’ We don’t even know the Chinese pictograph for ‘Happy hour.’"
So yeah, go ahead and assert that China would somehow be a better global steward of human rights.
Just because content owners have their own motives doesn't invalidate legitimate cyber threats, nor does it mean that very real military, industrial, and academic cyber threats don't exist. Also, anyone paying attention realizes that the lines between governments, criminals, espionage, and activists blurs in the cyber realm. Responding to cyber threats, no matter where they originate or why, takes the same form.
I'm sure it's better to have zero coordination because the slashdot crowd thinks it's a plot to take away their ability to pirate copyrighted content.
Ok, I'll stop being afraid of unlikely events.
Since the events linked in my post have all actually occurred or are ongoing right now, and are easily provable to any reasonable person who takes an objective look at reality and the known doctrinal Chinese cyber warfare strategies advocated by the PLA's senior leadership, I suggest we respond and defend appropriately.
That, or continue pretending they don't exist, or that when they do it's all a secret US government plot to oppress its citizens. Yeah, I'm sure that's somehow the better option.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be adversaries, and people want to do harm to the United States, in an environment where people like you firmly believe that everything must be a "false flag" operation designed to somehow take away your rights.
Or, it could be this:
Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20Report_16Oct2009.pdf
Occupying the Information High Ground: Chinese Capabilities for Computer Network Operations and Cyber Espionage
http://www.uscc.gov/RFP/2012/USCC%20Report_Chinese_CapabilitiesforComputer_NetworkOperationsandCyberEspionage.pdf
How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html
China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html
FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html
NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm
Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-18/chinese-espionage-campaign-targets-u-dot-s-dot-space-technology
Report: Hackers Seized Control of Computers in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/jet-propulsion-lab-hacked/
http://oig.nasa.gov/congressional/FINAL_written_statement_for_%20IT_%20hearing_February_26_edit_v2.pdf
Chinese hackers took control of NASA satellite for 11 minutes
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/chinese-hackers-took-control-of-nasa-satellite-for-11-minutes-20111119/
Chinese hackers suspected of interfering with US satellites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/27/chinese-hacking-us-satellites-suspected
Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china
China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/
Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
Are you done arguing with your person version of me? This jet isn't needed, and was a waste of billions. Period. I can state that without going off on the ignorant tangent you did.
So, you believe the statement, "War mongers like you really have no shame do you?" in response to my comment, which had nothing to do with "war mongering", is appropriate? As I said before, do you think that our principles and interests and those of our allies will stand on their own without protection? Have you been paying attention to China's global expansion?
"Are you done arguing with your version of me," indeed.
And if I'm somehow supposed to read between the lines an alternate translation that somehow means, "This jet isn't needed, and was a waste of billions," can you explain to me how the fifth-generation fighters of Russia and China don't deserve any sort of United States/Western equivalent counter-capability?
Yes, they're behind us, but that doesn't mean there is no threat to the ability of the US and its allies to maintain air superiority in any conflict. Just because they're not used in a combat setting right at this very moment doesn't in any way translate to "isn't needed". Again, why do you think Russia and China have developed fifth-generation stealth fighters?
Oh yeah, I forgot — the world we live in would be a happy, peaceful utopia if not for the US. The US is the sole source of evil in the world, and the only adversaries we do have are enemies we have made or manufactured ourselves.
It must be nice to live in that place where you can lay blame on the US, because it means you don't have to consider the reality that there are evil people and ideals in the world, and that principles of freedom need to be protected.
...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this is just a figment of the imagination then? And they certainly didn't have any "help"...
Oh, I know, China isn't a "threat". The fact that it's on track to exceed US military spending by 2025 must be for "peaceful regional defense". This isn't really happening.
What about the F-35? Oh, yeah — that, too.
Joe McCarthy was a US Senator. The "H" in "HUAC" stands for "House [of Representatives]".
Also, the VENONA decrypts revealed Communists and paid Soviet spies at all levels of US government.
This has nothing to do with a war on anything — climate change has been considered a national security threat for well over a decade and through multiple presidential administrations, and is not new.
Are you actually serious?
DOD and the military services (particularly the Navy) has been saying that climate change is a major national security threat for YEARS. This is NOT NEW, and it's not about the "war on terror", or anything else, "running out of steam".
"Climate change", as a measurable phenomenon with very real national security implications, is real. The political debacle which claims it is caused mostly or exclusively by humans, and therefore we need to decimate/tax/etc. industrial capability even as developing nations whose greenhouse gas emissions are skyrocketing do absolutely nothing, is the travesty here.
You do realize the US has adversaries, and that there are actual threats in the world that hope to displace the US as a global power and are even on track to exceed US military spending by 2025?
Except that is not how the law works for equipment or items. If you rent or lease a property and physically reside in it, yes, a warrant generally has to be served to you as the resident. This is not the same situation, and again, it's not an illegal or inappropriate seizure (or return). The law is well-understood in this area. That doesn't mean there isn't room for debate about the implications of seizing a server which serves a lot more users and functions than are related to the target of the warrant, but it doesn't change the other facts I've laid out.
Taking your analogy, the FBI doesn't have to identify themselves or serve the warrant to anyone but the property/facility owner -- which they did. How do you think the FBI got into a secure facility? By breaking in? I understand the argument you're making, and it may be courteous to engage the service provider more than was done here, but this search and the process was legal.
The property owner, XO Communications, was served, and the warrant was very specific. It was for a single server associated with a single IP, and for messages or traffic related to the bomb threats on that server. The fact that Riseup or anyone else said, "You won't find anything," is meaningless. This was not an illegal search nor seizure, and the FBI did not unlawfully enter the premises. The property owner is XO Communications. This is just a (likely intentional) attempt to make the FBI look bad (see the submitter) -- that's fine and certainly their right, but there was no abuse or illegal activity on the part of the FBI here. Again, we can have the larger discussions about whether the seizure was over-broad, but it was not illegal nor unconstitutional.
They're not the facility owner. XO Communiations is, and they're the only ones who need to be notified. How do you think the FBI got into a secure colo facility?
How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.
For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so? Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.
In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.
What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...
Can you imagine a world where it's possible for there to actually be ideals that are opposed to principles of freedom and democracy, and where the US isn't to blame for everything bad that happens? I know this would be a stretch from your comfortable worldview which probably holds that the only reason the US and/or West has any "enemies" is because we make them ourselves. I'm sure if the US didn't exist after WWII, Western European nations would all be in a happy place and the world would be a peaceful utopia.
Wake up. The US isn't perfect and the world is a complex place, but I hope you never have to live under the tyranny and oppression which you indirectly and implicitly defend with ignorant comments implying that the US just "makes up" adversaries for no good reason than to make war and line pockets. Take a look at history. Or reality. Either would do.
First, a backdrop, beginning with the fact that China is on track to exceed US military spending by 2025:
Chinese Insider Offers Rare Glimpse of U.S.-China Frictions
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html
"The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst. China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China’s becoming the world’s most powerful country."
Asia's balance of power: China’s military rise
http://www.economist.com/node/21552212
"NO MATTER how often China has emphasised the idea of a peaceful rise, the pace and nature of its military modernisation inevitably cause alarm. As America and the big European powers reduce their defence spending, China looks likely to maintain the past decade’s increases of about 12% a year. Even though its defence budget is less than a quarter the size of America’s today, China’s generals are ambitious. The country is on course to become the world’s largest military spender in just 20 years or so."
China’s military rise: The dragon’s new teeth
http://www.economist.com/node/21552193
And now on to what's happening every day in US academic and business environments:
How China Steals Our Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/how-china-steals-our-secrets.html
China's Cyber Thievery Is National Policy—And Must Be Challenged
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203718504577178832338032176-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html
FBI Traces Trail of Spy Ring to China
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203961204577266892884130620-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNzEwNDcyWj.html
NSA: China is Destroying U.S. Economy Via Security Hacks
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+China+is+Destroying+US+Economy+Via+Security+Hacks/article24328.htm
Former cybersecurity czar: Every major U.S. company has been hacked by China
http://www.itworld.com/security/262616/former-cybersecurity-czar-every-major-us-company-has-been-hacked-china
China Attacked Internet Security Company RSA, Cyber Commander Tells SASC
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/27/china-attacked-internet-security-company-rsa-cyber-commander-te/
Chinese Counterfeit Parts Keep Flowing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news%2Fasd%2F2012%2F03%2F27%2F04.xml&headline=Chinese+Counterfeit+Parts+Keep+Flowing
China Corporate
The United States is incredibly dependent on its space assets in support of national objectives. Directed energy weapons can not only provide offensive ASAT capabilities, but can serve as a significant defense against missile- or even space-based kinetic ASAT weapons. The advantage of a directed energy weapon is that it has the ability to travel at the speed of light and target missiles during their vulnerable boost phase within seconds. During the 1990s and 2000s, the United States pursued directed energy weapons based on megawatt-class chemical lasers. Two of systems, the Airborne Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL), were complementary, but never made it beyond the early testing phase.
The concept of the Airborne Laser came to fruition on a modified Boeing 747 known as the YAL-1A Airborne Laser Testbed (ABLT). In early 2010, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced that ABLT successfully destroyed two test missiles, saying at the time that "The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies." Unfortunately, ABLT was $4 billion over budget and eight years behind schedule. Political and economic realities meant that the US could "no longer continue to do everything and explore every potential technology". On February 14, 2012, MDA announced that the ABLT program was terminated, transitioning into long-term storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis Monthan AFB — "the Boneyard".
The Space-Based Laser (SBL) concept is the notion of locating a high-powered laser in space, with a similar ability to target missiles in their boost phase. A constellation of 20 SBLs would be able to provide continuous global coverage, and target nearly any launch -- including ASAT weapons. A test firing of a Space-Based Laser Integrated Flight Experiment (SBL-IFX) was originally schedule for 2012 to demonstrate SBL's capabilities. This project became so complex and expensive that MDA suspended research and development in 2002 — another victim of economic priorities, and a desire to focus resources on existing, proven kinetic systems.
If such systems are thought to have so much potential and capability, why are they no longer pursued? The answer is primarily one of cost. Further, if the US possessed such a comprehensive anti-missile and anti-ASAT capability, it is unlikely that an adversary would use a kinetic ASAT weapon. As adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran turn to cyber, it becomes more likely that cyber, conventional jamming, and EW capabilities would be used to target US space systems. It is reasonable that the US response should be in kind. One example: China is currently fielding the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). Instead of using complicated missile defense systems or directed energy weapons to target it, and the current US strategy is indeed one of jam, spoof — and then shoot, if necessary, with the idea being to "break as many links as possible" in the chain, including via cyber and EW. Cyber can act as a significant force multiplier against even conventional weapons systems — which can work both for and against us. China has already demonstrated the potential effectiveness of cyber capabilities against US space systems. Resources devoted to enhancing our offensive and defensive cyber capabilities in the context of space systems and missile defense is money well spent.
Is this another version of the same issues people complained about when seeing their favorite newscaster (or "other" things) in HD?
Do we need some "masking" of the mundane reality of scenes (e.g., things "looking like sets") to sufficiently suspend disbelief?