What privacy issues? Waze collects this data from every user, but they have no system for tracking individual users, the data is anonymous and usually has a bout a two minute delay before being reflected in the navigation system. And what identifying data do they have? an email address and location info. Google Latitude does a better job of sharing my exact location (because I have intentionally allowed it to) with my friends and family than Waze does.
Re:What about updating old roads that get changed
on
How Satnav Maps Are Made
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Bingo, And that is why I'd like everybody to give Waze a serious try. Similar to OSM it's maps are editable. It requires an active data connection on your device to work fully and properly. As your driving it's continually reporting your location and speed data to their system. This allows it to dynamically route around traffic issues. This used to be the biggest selling point, but it's no longer that unique of a feature. What is unique is that every user is allowed to log into the map and make fixes.
How significant is this? Six months ago I discovered Waze, at the time I was using a TomTom device and was frustrated that finally two years after opening a major new commuter route had finally made it onto the TomTom maps. But another route that cut more time off my commute had just opened and I knew Tomtom wouldn't have it for years to come. When I fired up Waze, less than two months after the second commuter route had opened, it was already in their maps. The second benefit was I'd reported other errors via the TomTom reporting system without ever seeing the fixes getting made. I was able to go into the Maps in Waze and my fixes went active within a couple weeks.
Since then I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up the roads in my area. I've mapped in a major road re-design and another new commuter route before they were open to traffic. I turned both on a couple weeks before the roads actually opened and both were live on the system the day each road opened. Contrast that to the first road and TomTom taking nearly two years to add it to their maps.
And best of all, Waze is free, those TomTom updates were $12 every quarter, for very slow updates. Waze is as accurate as the users in the area make it, it has helped me avoid several traffic jams and it's free! (as in beer). You don't have to edit or any thing, you just need an iOS or Android device (there are versions that will work on Winmobile, symbian and Blackberry devices but they are not updating those client apps at this time), with an active data connection and you are on your way.
I was looking this up planning on making the suggestion until I saw someone had beat me to it, but according to Wikipedia , the last Tom Swift title was published in 2007. I really didn't get into sci-fi until age 11 or 12 (Thank you Anne McCaffrey), but I do recall reading every one of these I could get from the school library at earlier ages. Or I should say I didn't think I was into sci-fi until older, but I guess Tom Swift is Sci-fi so I was into it. I also enjoyed the tripod books as a kid, but mostly because Boys Life Serialized them during my cub and scout years.
Sure it would, because unless the real gun was found through other investigative measures, the police would look for the weapon matching the serial on the primer. Just because the ballistics then fails to match the suspected weapon doesn't mean they'd then know which weapon it would match. A better method, would be to collect multiple casings from multiple weapons and scatter them at the scene. Then the police would really have no clue which weapon it was.
Forget intentionally "defacing" the firearm, just put a few thousand rounds through it and normal wear and tear on the pin will eliminate the etching. Firing pins often wear overtime and are often replaced from time to time. This law is useless, and does nothing to protect anyone from criminal activities.
In case you really don't know, an acre foot is the amount of water that would cover one acre to the depth of one foot. This is equal to 325,851.43 gallons or 1,233,481.84 liters.
It's not about not knowing or not reading the books. It's enjoying how it's portrayed on the screen. Fanatsy Books seldom transfer well onto the screen, large or small. So when such a great series is translated so well, we like being able to watch it. I'd say a very large portion of those who want to watch it without waiting or on their time schedule, or without paying for HBO on top of Cable, have already read the books.
It's about experiencing the stories in another medium. I've read the books, I've listened to them all on Audible and now I'm enjoying seeing it play out in a visual medium.
No, it's they can't avoid forums until after all episodes of the season have ended, as they are always a week behind the series, and thus unable to participate in the fan discussions of any of the episodes until after the season has completed. Of course by that point the major fan discussion of the prior episodes will be considered old and out of date.
Only when expressly approved by the SecDef. as per your cited 9.6.2
9.6.2. Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected.
Only if the collection is expressly approved by the SecDef can the collected footage be passed to Civil Law enforcement agencies. And they are then fully responsible for maintaining and more importantly acting on the info. My point still stands, if it doesn't meet mission it will NOT be passed on, unless they've requested SecDef approval in advance.
The 90 days is time to determine if the footage collected any info that meets the collection mission of the flight. This collection mission is both the immediate mission of the flight as well as several standing missions (terrorism, threats to aviation safety, etc...) But if it doesn't meet that mission, the footage must and will be destroyed. It cannot be passed to another agency if the collection mission did not contain that type of activity.
So your scenario of a crime. If it's just a random run of the mill crime, say a murder or a massive pot grow, it doesn't meet mission and thus must be destroyed, not passed to another agency. If it doesn't meet mission it can't be collected, if it can't be collected then it can't be reported (passed to other agencies) and must be destroyed.
Basically the Military Intel Community tries to look at it like this, if we can't collect it because it didn't meet mission, then it didn't happen because we didn't write it down(report it).
The Law enforcement community is going to have to find their own evidence because the Air Force is prohibited from sharing the information that didn't meet mission.
The thing about this non-issue is that they can't just pass the incidental footage. That 90 day window is to give them time to determine if what was caught on tape meets their collection mission. If not it gets tossed. Not passed to other agencies, tossed in to the shredder/erased. Under the Intel Oversight Provisions implemented under EO 12333 if it doesn't meet mission collection, and it involves US Persons (and all persons within the boundaries of the US are assumed to be US Persons, until proven otherwise) then it cannot be retained, and it cannot be passed to other civilian agencies. If it does meet mission, then it can be passed but only with careful documentation of how it meets mission, and how the US Persons Identified are involved in the actions that qualify the collection as meeting mission.
So your pot grow in the back yard is safe from Air Force drones. They are prohibited from sharing that information as it does not meet their mission and thus is not retainable or passable information. Now when a sharp eyed analyst realizes you are using a pot grow in the back yard to hide the AA missile launcher you have aimed at the local International Airport. Then they can retain and pass, because any threat to air-travel is within their mission.
The key there is that they are not "Supposed" to. And the military really does try to not do so. This was not always the case, but after the intelligence abuses of the 60's and 70's strict rules and procedures were put in place to limit and control any and all collection on US Persons. The base law for the prohibition on military involvement is found in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. And while it does strongly restrict the militaries ability to function in LEO roles, it is not a blanket or total ban. So it can even be authorized (though not easy and not likely to happen), if the legal powers that be determine there is a mission for collection that only the military can fulfill. Read about the Act and how it works here.
Further specific limitations were put in place by law and by Executive Order in the late 70's and early 80's. And was specifically codified into set strict rules in Executive Order 12333 as first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981
All this article really says is that the Intel oversight provisions are in place and are being applied to drones as well. As they should be. If the drone flights record anything while flying over US territory they are allowed to retain it up to 90 days in order to determine if there is anything that falls within mission on the tapes. If not then it must be deleted. In fact if they don't have mission to collect the info they cannot legally pass it to the FBI or any other law enforcement agency. If it doesn't fall within the guidelines of their mission scope it must be tossed. To pass it to civilian LEO's without mission is a violation of Posse Comitatus and the Intel Oversight laws and regs. As such an action is considered the same as if the Air Force were directly conducting the law enforcement actions.
All the fear mongering and conspiracy theorizing going on here is moot. The Air Force has 90 days to review the media to determine if what was recorded meets mission. If not it gets tossed, regardless of whether or not the FBI, DEA, EPA, BATF, DHS, NRA, RIAA, MPAA or any other agency thinks, wants, or could do with the info.
But what if they do somehow catch usable footage of Al-qaeda prepping the next big attack? Even if all the members of that cell are US persons, the fact that they are engaged in terrorism does put the collected info inside standing mission. The information can then be analyzed, and reported, but must include annotation that US Persons were collected on, and a brief explanation of which of the limited scope of collectible activities the US Persons were involved in that authorized the retention and reporting of the info. That information can then be passed to the FBI to act on.
The only documentation the "professional" had to dig through was EO 12333, and maybe the Airforce Regulation that implements the EO. This was not some amazing discovery. It's a lazy reporter trying to make standing legal policies sound like they are pointing to something evil.
Lawyer: So your commander ordered you to violate the Intel Oversight laws and regulations?
Drone Operator: Yes it was a standing written order issued by Commander Bob.
Lawyer: Thank you, I have nothing more for this witness.
Since in the scenario you outlined for us, the commander, whom you have ordering the camera's to be on and recording, is the one on trial for the violations, not the operator. Oh sure he could have refused to run the camera's and will get remedial training and probably lose a stripe for obeying the unlawful order. But the Intel Oversight system actually works quite well. And were this fictional commander to be issuing such orders he would be the one really on trial for violating the Intel Oversight Regs and Laws by collecting on US Persons without legal authority or mission to do so.
Umm there's nothing in the constitution about that. The prohibition on the military being involved in police/Law Enforcement functions is due to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978. Prior to that act the military could and occasionally was used in LE functions. Note that act does NOT apply to the National Guard as those troops belong to their respective State, not to the Federal Government.
This not some amazing new discovery. It's called Intel Oversight. All Military intelligence under under these same rules. We are allowed to collect only in accordance with an assigned mission. Said mission cannot be to simply go out and watch of follow or collect on random or even specific citizens. What is allowed is if during authorized collection we come across information about a possible US citizen we are allowed 90 days to review to determine if A: The person is indeed a US Person (legal status and yes US Corporations qualify and did before the famous court ruling that the/. crowd hates so much). And if so B: is there reason to collect and retain the info. This is usually a no but there are certain categories of activities that would allow collection to go forward and the information to be retained in official intelligence reporting.
Now about applicability. In the US the military is required to assume, lacking other information to the contrary, that anyone we run across is a US Person and thus most likely cannot be collected on. So don't worry, they aren't going to start flying "accidently" across the states filming your backyard activities. We'll leave that to the Jackbooted thugs in the FBI and local PD's. Outside the US the view shifts 180 degrees and we are to assume, again until we get some evidence to the contrary, that any individual we run across is NOT a US Person. But should we collect info on someone and they then turn out to be a US person, we are again given the 90 Window to determine if they are in fact a US Person, and if they are engaged in one of the legally specified activities that allow or even mandate collection and reporting on them. Some examples of these categories would be anyone engaged in espionage for a foreign power, anyone actively involved with a declared terrorist group. (not just someone we think "looks like a terrorist."
And regardless of whether they are involved in collectible activities or not any and all collection on US Persons is reported not just up the military channels but also the DoJ and the CIA. People do lose rank and intelligence positions over violation of the Intel Oversight rules. All military intelligence personnel are briefed on Intel Oversight at least annually.
The poster of this story really has no idea what he's talking about. This is a non-story and it's really nothing new. And once again Wired tries to write about the Intelligence community possibly doing wrong but just proves how little their reporters actually understand things.
But I'm sure the/. geniuses will let me know how wrong I am, even though they have zero experience with this realm.
Wow so they think they can determine your location via your IP address and the ISP location. My ISP is HQ'd in or near Denver CO, I live in Utah, all the web-ads that try to target my location target me as being in Denver. So hack away, you'll still be hundreds of miles off, based solely on my IP.
Not that big a concern. The missiles aren't the targets, the Olympic Venues with tens of thousands of attendees and athletes from around the world are the primary target. And it's very unlikely any terrorists planning an attack will have enough resources to target multiple launch platforms as well as the targeted venues.
And even if they did, that is the trade off, 30,000 casualties or at most a few hundred. This really isn't anything new. Since at least the 2002 Winter Olympics if not before SAM's have been in place to protect the Olympic Venues. It's very unlikely they'll be used but should the need be there it's better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them ready to react to an attack.
But if a substantial portion of the scheduled athletes are banned at the last second for breaking this rule, they don't have time to bring in replacements, and if the big name athletes suddenly are dropped off the rosters, attendance and viewership will drop dramatically. We are watching to see Phelps set new records and continue to totally dominate the sport of swimming, if suddenly the medal contending athletes are unknowns from Botswana, Iran and Peru, US viewers (where the real money comes from) will find something else to watch, and NBC will scream bloody murder at the IOC for killing their ad revenues.
So getting lots of athletes, especially the big name ones to break this ridiculous rule is a good idea. Perhaps who ever is providing the Official Cell Phone should ensure that all the athletes get nice powerful smart phones with premiere network access to guarantee those pics get uploaded to the cloud as soon as the shutter is snapped. Then we'll see how quickly the IOC backtracks.
Add in a few million attendee's doing the same thing, and see if the IOC can afford to sue that many people at once. Oh and if you do happen to actually attend an event, or at least live in the UK, be sure to tweet/post/share event results as they occur. The IOC and the Television networks need to realize that the days of controlling the release of scores and event results are over.
19 years old is NOT considered modern. Some define cars as being Antique at 15 years, that's a bit quick in my opinion, but any early 1990's car is NOT modern.
The inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And are not relevant to this discussion.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in determining any rights. It was the declaration of independence from the British Empire, that's it. It wasn't until 13 years later that the Constitution was written and the country was formally established.
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
How many more times do we have to say it. They are not synonyms. This effort is to improve interrogation so we don't have to let the radicals push us into torture (as happened in the early days of Afghanistan.)
Absolutely we need to sit down in a room with someone and interrogate them. We learned that lesson when we went into Bosnia, after the Clinton administration had gutted the HUMINT assets of our country because of all the great things our technology could do. Then we quickly realized all the things that technology can't do. All those drones and satellites can't see inside buildings or caves. They can't tell if that farm truck was loading fertilizer to be used for fertilizing or for building bombs.
Not everybody lives with a phone attached to themselves 24/7. Many of those who seek to do us harm know to avoid electronic communications as much as possible.
Thus comes in to play Human Intelligence collection and Interrogation of suspects and accomplices. We know this guy went into the barn where the truck load of fertilizer was delivered. The building that is miles from the nearest phone line we could tap. If we can get him talking, he can tell us what the "Farmer" is doing with the fertilizer. Is he really spreading all the fertilizer on the field or is he spreading a little mixed in with dirt from the barn floor to fool the drones? Where are the bombs going to be placed? When are they going to be placed and so on.
Technology is great but we've been burned before by relying too heavily on it. Ultimately it comes down to finding the right guy to talk to and then talking to him, at length and not necessarily at his will. But do not confuse Interrogation and torture. They are not synonymous in the least. Interrogation is one of the most effective investigative tool our law enforcement have. Yes everybody has the right to remain silent, but many do not have the intelligence to do so. And as long as they haven't invoked their rights, an interrogator can ask questions, and get answers without the subject even saying anything. Body language gives all kinds of information. Further even those who have invoked their rights, will often still end up speaking with an interrogator, just with their lawyer present. Again, with a capable interrogator even with a lawyer present, they give up all kinds of information even if the lawyer doesn't let them say a thing.
Take it outside the criminal arena to the intelligence collection field, where Lawyers and the 5th amendment seldom have any say in the matter (the various Geneva and other conventions do) and again we are able to extract great deals of information. And Torture is not necessary or even desired.
I know hating the US and or it's intelligence community is the popular thing to do here on slashdot, but your hate here is miss-guided. They are seeking to make a very valuable and effective skill more effective, to help further stave off the temptation to look to the "enhanced techniques" that border on and even cross over into torture. We don't want to do that. We want to get the information quickly and humanly.
As to surveillance, yea right, how you going to surveil an individual through a foreign country with the resources we have. Most our agents, regardless of agency, are obviously American or at least western European. Surveillance is a practiced skill, that becomes immensely harder when nobody on your team can blend in with the local population. Don't believe the movies. I've yet to see a good demonstration of discreet surveillance in a movie.
Sure because our law enforcement agencies NEVER need to interrogate our own civilians as part of criminal investigations. This is not about torture. It's about finding ways to make interrogation more effective. Which, contrary to your statement, usually leads to moving us further away from the realm of torture, because it has been clearly demonstrated that a tortured confession is highly suspect. And such a statement will never be admissible in court.
Note the groups involved. Yes the CIA and the DOD are there, but so is the FBI. In fact the FBI has the greatest need to not be associated with torture as their interrogatees are most likely to end up in front of a judge. And it's well known that most judges will toss a case where torture was used to coerce a confession. The FBI spends a lot of money investigating crimes, they don't want their cases walking out the door because the judge didn't like the techniques used. So they want to find the most effective, non-torture based methods possible.
We should be cheering this research because the more effective interrogation is, the less tempting torture becomes. If we know we can get a legit confession quickly through effective interrogation techniques, then there is no need to risk using torture just because it might get a coerced confession faster.
There is a difference between interrogation and torture, they are not synonyms.
Slashdot Mirror
What privacy issues? Waze collects this data from every user, but they have no system for tracking individual users, the data is anonymous and usually has a bout a two minute delay before being reflected in the navigation system. And what identifying data do they have? an email address and location info. Google Latitude does a better job of sharing my exact location (because I have intentionally allowed it to) with my friends and family than Waze does.
Bingo, And that is why I'd like everybody to give Waze a serious try. Similar to OSM it's maps are editable. It requires an active data connection on your device to work fully and properly. As your driving it's continually reporting your location and speed data to their system. This allows it to dynamically route around traffic issues. This used to be the biggest selling point, but it's no longer that unique of a feature. What is unique is that every user is allowed to log into the map and make fixes.
How significant is this? Six months ago I discovered Waze, at the time I was using a TomTom device and was frustrated that finally two years after opening a major new commuter route had finally made it onto the TomTom maps. But another route that cut more time off my commute had just opened and I knew Tomtom wouldn't have it for years to come. When I fired up Waze, less than two months after the second commuter route had opened, it was already in their maps. The second benefit was I'd reported other errors via the TomTom reporting system without ever seeing the fixes getting made. I was able to go into the Maps in Waze and my fixes went active within a couple weeks.
Since then I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up the roads in my area. I've mapped in a major road re-design and another new commuter route before they were open to traffic. I turned both on a couple weeks before the roads actually opened and both were live on the system the day each road opened. Contrast that to the first road and TomTom taking nearly two years to add it to their maps.
And best of all, Waze is free, those TomTom updates were $12 every quarter, for very slow updates. Waze is as accurate as the users in the area make it, it has helped me avoid several traffic jams and it's free! (as in beer). You don't have to edit or any thing, you just need an iOS or Android device (there are versions that will work on Winmobile, symbian and Blackberry devices but they are not updating those client apps at this time), with an active data connection and you are on your way.
I was looking this up planning on making the suggestion until I saw someone had beat me to it, but according to Wikipedia , the last Tom Swift title was published in 2007. I really didn't get into sci-fi until age 11 or 12 (Thank you Anne McCaffrey), but I do recall reading every one of these I could get from the school library at earlier ages. Or I should say I didn't think I was into sci-fi until older, but I guess Tom Swift is Sci-fi so I was into it. I also enjoyed the tripod books as a kid, but mostly because Boys Life Serialized them during my cub and scout years.
Sure it would, because unless the real gun was found through other investigative measures, the police would look for the weapon matching the serial on the primer. Just because the ballistics then fails to match the suspected weapon doesn't mean they'd then know which weapon it would match. A better method, would be to collect multiple casings from multiple weapons and scatter them at the scene. Then the police would really have no clue which weapon it was.
Forget intentionally "defacing" the firearm, just put a few thousand rounds through it and normal wear and tear on the pin will eliminate the etching. Firing pins often wear overtime and are often replaced from time to time. This law is useless, and does nothing to protect anyone from criminal activities.
In case you really don't know, an acre foot is the amount of water that would cover one acre to the depth of one foot. This is equal to 325,851.43 gallons or 1,233,481.84 liters.
Or 5,172.25 hogsheads
It's not about not knowing or not reading the books. It's enjoying how it's portrayed on the screen. Fanatsy Books seldom transfer well onto the screen, large or small. So when such a great series is translated so well, we like being able to watch it. I'd say a very large portion of those who want to watch it without waiting or on their time schedule, or without paying for HBO on top of Cable, have already read the books.
It's about experiencing the stories in another medium. I've read the books, I've listened to them all on Audible and now I'm enjoying seeing it play out in a visual medium.
No, it's they can't avoid forums until after all episodes of the season have ended, as they are always a week behind the series, and thus unable to participate in the fan discussions of any of the episodes until after the season has completed. Of course by that point the major fan discussion of the prior episodes will be considered old and out of date.
Thus they have a very legitimate complaint.
Only if the collection is expressly approved by the SecDef can the collected footage be passed to Civil Law enforcement agencies. And they are then fully responsible for maintaining and more importantly acting on the info. My point still stands, if it doesn't meet mission it will NOT be passed on, unless they've requested SecDef approval in advance.
The 90 days is time to determine if the footage collected any info that meets the collection mission of the flight. This collection mission is both the immediate mission of the flight as well as several standing missions (terrorism, threats to aviation safety, etc...) But if it doesn't meet that mission, the footage must and will be destroyed. It cannot be passed to another agency if the collection mission did not contain that type of activity.
So your scenario of a crime. If it's just a random run of the mill crime, say a murder or a massive pot grow, it doesn't meet mission and thus must be destroyed, not passed to another agency. If it doesn't meet mission it can't be collected, if it can't be collected then it can't be reported (passed to other agencies) and must be destroyed.
Basically the Military Intel Community tries to look at it like this, if we can't collect it because it didn't meet mission, then it didn't happen because we didn't write it down(report it).
The Law enforcement community is going to have to find their own evidence because the Air Force is prohibited from sharing the information that didn't meet mission.
The thing about this non-issue is that they can't just pass the incidental footage. That 90 day window is to give them time to determine if what was caught on tape meets their collection mission. If not it gets tossed. Not passed to other agencies, tossed in to the shredder/erased. Under the Intel Oversight Provisions implemented under EO 12333 if it doesn't meet mission collection, and it involves US Persons (and all persons within the boundaries of the US are assumed to be US Persons, until proven otherwise) then it cannot be retained, and it cannot be passed to other civilian agencies. If it does meet mission, then it can be passed but only with careful documentation of how it meets mission, and how the US Persons Identified are involved in the actions that qualify the collection as meeting mission.
So your pot grow in the back yard is safe from Air Force drones. They are prohibited from sharing that information as it does not meet their mission and thus is not retainable or passable information. Now when a sharp eyed analyst realizes you are using a pot grow in the back yard to hide the AA missile launcher you have aimed at the local International Airport. Then they can retain and pass, because any threat to air-travel is within their mission.
The key there is that they are not "Supposed" to. And the military really does try to not do so. This was not always the case, but after the intelligence abuses of the 60's and 70's strict rules and procedures were put in place to limit and control any and all collection on US Persons. The base law for the prohibition on military involvement is found in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. And while it does strongly restrict the militaries ability to function in LEO roles, it is not a blanket or total ban. So it can even be authorized (though not easy and not likely to happen), if the legal powers that be determine there is a mission for collection that only the military can fulfill. Read about the Act and how it works here.
Further specific limitations were put in place by law and by Executive Order in the late 70's and early 80's. And was specifically codified into set strict rules in Executive Order 12333 as first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981
All this article really says is that the Intel oversight provisions are in place and are being applied to drones as well. As they should be. If the drone flights record anything while flying over US territory they are allowed to retain it up to 90 days in order to determine if there is anything that falls within mission on the tapes. If not then it must be deleted. In fact if they don't have mission to collect the info they cannot legally pass it to the FBI or any other law enforcement agency. If it doesn't fall within the guidelines of their mission scope it must be tossed. To pass it to civilian LEO's without mission is a violation of Posse Comitatus and the Intel Oversight laws and regs. As such an action is considered the same as if the Air Force were directly conducting the law enforcement actions.
All the fear mongering and conspiracy theorizing going on here is moot. The Air Force has 90 days to review the media to determine if what was recorded meets mission. If not it gets tossed, regardless of whether or not the FBI, DEA, EPA, BATF, DHS, NRA, RIAA, MPAA or any other agency thinks, wants, or could do with the info.
But what if they do somehow catch usable footage of Al-qaeda prepping the next big attack? Even if all the members of that cell are US persons, the fact that they are engaged in terrorism does put the collected info inside standing mission. The information can then be analyzed, and reported, but must include annotation that US Persons were collected on, and a brief explanation of which of the limited scope of collectible activities the US Persons were involved in that authorized the retention and reporting of the info. That information can then be passed to the FBI to act on.
The only documentation the "professional" had to dig through was EO 12333, and maybe the Airforce Regulation that implements the EO. This was not some amazing discovery. It's a lazy reporter trying to make standing legal policies sound like they are pointing to something evil.
Except you left out the next part of the trial.
Lawyer: So your commander ordered you to violate the Intel Oversight laws and regulations?
Drone Operator: Yes it was a standing written order issued by Commander Bob.
Lawyer: Thank you, I have nothing more for this witness.
Since in the scenario you outlined for us, the commander, whom you have ordering the camera's to be on and recording, is the one on trial for the violations, not the operator. Oh sure he could have refused to run the camera's and will get remedial training and probably lose a stripe for obeying the unlawful order. But the Intel Oversight system actually works quite well. And were this fictional commander to be issuing such orders he would be the one really on trial for violating the Intel Oversight Regs and Laws by collecting on US Persons without legal authority or mission to do so.
Okay who has the next fictional FUD story?
Umm there's nothing in the constitution about that. The prohibition on the military being involved in police/Law Enforcement functions is due to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978. Prior to that act the military could and occasionally was used in LE functions. Note that act does NOT apply to the National Guard as those troops belong to their respective State, not to the Federal Government.
This not some amazing new discovery. It's called Intel Oversight. All Military intelligence under under these same rules. We are allowed to collect only in accordance with an assigned mission. Said mission cannot be to simply go out and watch of follow or collect on random or even specific citizens. What is allowed is if during authorized collection we come across information about a possible US citizen we are allowed 90 days to review to determine if A: The person is indeed a US Person (legal status and yes US Corporations qualify and did before the famous court ruling that the /. crowd hates so much). And if so B: is there reason to collect and retain the info. This is usually a no but there are certain categories of activities that would allow collection to go forward and the information to be retained in official intelligence reporting.
/. geniuses will let me know how wrong I am, even though they have zero experience with this realm.
Now about applicability. In the US the military is required to assume, lacking other information to the contrary, that anyone we run across is a US Person and thus most likely cannot be collected on. So don't worry, they aren't going to start flying "accidently" across the states filming your backyard activities. We'll leave that to the Jackbooted thugs in the FBI and local PD's. Outside the US the view shifts 180 degrees and we are to assume, again until we get some evidence to the contrary, that any individual we run across is NOT a US Person. But should we collect info on someone and they then turn out to be a US person, we are again given the 90 Window to determine if they are in fact a US Person, and if they are engaged in one of the legally specified activities that allow or even mandate collection and reporting on them. Some examples of these categories would be anyone engaged in espionage for a foreign power, anyone actively involved with a declared terrorist group. (not just someone we think "looks like a terrorist."
And regardless of whether they are involved in collectible activities or not any and all collection on US Persons is reported not just up the military channels but also the DoJ and the CIA. People do lose rank and intelligence positions over violation of the Intel Oversight rules. All military intelligence personnel are briefed on Intel Oversight at least annually.
The poster of this story really has no idea what he's talking about. This is a non-story and it's really nothing new. And once again Wired tries to write about the Intelligence community possibly doing wrong but just proves how little their reporters actually understand things.
But I'm sure the
Wow so they think they can determine your location via your IP address and the ISP location. My ISP is HQ'd in or near Denver CO, I live in Utah, all the web-ads that try to target my location target me as being in Denver. So hack away, you'll still be hundreds of miles off, based solely on my IP.
Not that big a concern. The missiles aren't the targets, the Olympic Venues with tens of thousands of attendees and athletes from around the world are the primary target. And it's very unlikely any terrorists planning an attack will have enough resources to target multiple launch platforms as well as the targeted venues.
And even if they did, that is the trade off, 30,000 casualties or at most a few hundred. This really isn't anything new. Since at least the 2002 Winter Olympics if not before SAM's have been in place to protect the Olympic Venues. It's very unlikely they'll be used but should the need be there it's better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them ready to react to an attack.
But if a substantial portion of the scheduled athletes are banned at the last second for breaking this rule, they don't have time to bring in replacements, and if the big name athletes suddenly are dropped off the rosters, attendance and viewership will drop dramatically. We are watching to see Phelps set new records and continue to totally dominate the sport of swimming, if suddenly the medal contending athletes are unknowns from Botswana, Iran and Peru, US viewers (where the real money comes from) will find something else to watch, and NBC will scream bloody murder at the IOC for killing their ad revenues.
So getting lots of athletes, especially the big name ones to break this ridiculous rule is a good idea. Perhaps who ever is providing the Official Cell Phone should ensure that all the athletes get nice powerful smart phones with premiere network access to guarantee those pics get uploaded to the cloud as soon as the shutter is snapped. Then we'll see how quickly the IOC backtracks.
Add in a few million attendee's doing the same thing, and see if the IOC can afford to sue that many people at once. Oh and if you do happen to actually attend an event, or at least live in the UK, be sure to tweet/post/share event results as they occur. The IOC and the Television networks need to realize that the days of controlling the release of scores and event results are over.
This sounds like a perfect job for Anonymous, how many infringers does it take to overwhelm the IOC police?
19 years old is NOT considered modern. Some define cars as being Antique at 15 years, that's a bit quick in my opinion, but any early 1990's car is NOT modern.
The inalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And are not relevant to this discussion.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in determining any rights. It was the declaration of independence from the British Empire, that's it. It wasn't until 13 years later that the Constitution was written and the country was formally established.
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
Interrogation !=torture
How many more times do we have to say it. They are not synonyms. This effort is to improve interrogation so we don't have to let the radicals push us into torture (as happened in the early days of Afghanistan.)
Absolutely we need to sit down in a room with someone and interrogate them. We learned that lesson when we went into Bosnia, after the Clinton administration had gutted the HUMINT assets of our country because of all the great things our technology could do. Then we quickly realized all the things that technology can't do. All those drones and satellites can't see inside buildings or caves. They can't tell if that farm truck was loading fertilizer to be used for fertilizing or for building bombs.
Not everybody lives with a phone attached to themselves 24/7. Many of those who seek to do us harm know to avoid electronic communications as much as possible.
Thus comes in to play Human Intelligence collection and Interrogation of suspects and accomplices. We know this guy went into the barn where the truck load of fertilizer was delivered. The building that is miles from the nearest phone line we could tap. If we can get him talking, he can tell us what the "Farmer" is doing with the fertilizer. Is he really spreading all the fertilizer on the field or is he spreading a little mixed in with dirt from the barn floor to fool the drones? Where are the bombs going to be placed? When are they going to be placed and so on.
Technology is great but we've been burned before by relying too heavily on it. Ultimately it comes down to finding the right guy to talk to and then talking to him, at length and not necessarily at his will. But do not confuse Interrogation and torture. They are not synonymous in the least. Interrogation is one of the most effective investigative tool our law enforcement have. Yes everybody has the right to remain silent, but many do not have the intelligence to do so. And as long as they haven't invoked their rights, an interrogator can ask questions, and get answers without the subject even saying anything. Body language gives all kinds of information. Further even those who have invoked their rights, will often still end up speaking with an interrogator, just with their lawyer present. Again, with a capable interrogator even with a lawyer present, they give up all kinds of information even if the lawyer doesn't let them say a thing.
Take it outside the criminal arena to the intelligence collection field, where Lawyers and the 5th amendment seldom have any say in the matter (the various Geneva and other conventions do) and again we are able to extract great deals of information. And Torture is not necessary or even desired.
I know hating the US and or it's intelligence community is the popular thing to do here on slashdot, but your hate here is miss-guided. They are seeking to make a very valuable and effective skill more effective, to help further stave off the temptation to look to the "enhanced techniques" that border on and even cross over into torture. We don't want to do that. We want to get the information quickly and humanly.
As to surveillance, yea right, how you going to surveil an individual through a foreign country with the resources we have. Most our agents, regardless of agency, are obviously American or at least western European. Surveillance is a practiced skill, that becomes immensely harder when nobody on your team can blend in with the local population. Don't believe the movies. I've yet to see a good demonstration of discreet surveillance in a movie.
Sure because our law enforcement agencies NEVER need to interrogate our own civilians as part of criminal investigations. This is not about torture. It's about finding ways to make interrogation more effective. Which, contrary to your statement, usually leads to moving us further away from the realm of torture, because it has been clearly demonstrated that a tortured confession is highly suspect. And such a statement will never be admissible in court.
Note the groups involved. Yes the CIA and the DOD are there, but so is the FBI. In fact the FBI has the greatest need to not be associated with torture as their interrogatees are most likely to end up in front of a judge. And it's well known that most judges will toss a case where torture was used to coerce a confession. The FBI spends a lot of money investigating crimes, they don't want their cases walking out the door because the judge didn't like the techniques used. So they want to find the most effective, non-torture based methods possible.
We should be cheering this research because the more effective interrogation is, the less tempting torture becomes. If we know we can get a legit confession quickly through effective interrogation techniques, then there is no need to risk using torture just because it might get a coerced confession faster.
There is a difference between interrogation and torture, they are not synonyms.