US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically

DigitAl56K writes "The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."

Is that admissible in court?????

I don't even think you can use evidence collected by this type of illegal surveillance in court! So if I, for example (NOTE TO THE NSA, I AM NOT DOING THIS, I'M SIMPLY GIVING AN EXAMPLE), hacking into some computer, the NSA catch me with their illegal warrantless computer, and try to try me in court, can't I just challenge the evidence they are using or something? Claim it can't be admitted into court?

In all respects, I knew this would happen. You destroy civil liberties with a pointless war, and what do yuo get? A POLICE STATE. What the United States are doing IS HOW HITLER GOT HIS RISE TO POWER! Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?

First Post :)

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Somewhat implicit in your response is that you assume that you'd even see the inside of a public courtroom. If the administration can ignore laws which people heretofore assumed applied to them, who's to say that people allegedly caught with this "new" technology are entitled to a fair hearing? Scary stuff.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

It's called extraordinary rendition. Which itself is an extraordinary term.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

"National security" are the words they need to use to push the courtroom proceedings from being judge/jury situation to a military tribunal. And of course if it's "in the interest of national security" then the information cannot get out because it will "jeopardize national security."

The parent mentions dictatorship. Here is a great article about the steps necessary to secure power in that fashion, and the author (Naomi Wolf) compares what has happened recently to other situations in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

How cute, somebody who thinks he'll have a trial. A trial where he gets to see the evidence, no less.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Who says they have to give you a trial, or even charge you.

They got detainees in Gitmo, that have been there for years with out trial or eve being charged with a crime.

Somehow I don't think the rhetoric of "You used illegal surveillance to jail me", will do much to convince them to let you go.

Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them. We the people have already show how apathetic we are to this treatment.
But hay, enough with all this thinking and having opinions; American Idol and Survivor are on!

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them.

Admissible in court?? It was a court (the Supreme one) that we have to thank for all this, after their boneheaded decision in November of 2000.

Long after other presidents have been forgotten, George W. Bush will be remembered for what he did.

And domestic spying from outer space isn't even close to the worst. Hell, compared to the torture business that's been breaking in the news in the past 2 weeks with the John Yoo torture memorandum and now the information about the "star chamber" that layed out the plan for this torture regime, domestic surveillance like this is barely a blip on the radar of evil.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Actually, it is. It says nothing about differentiating between citizens and non-citizens. Where does it say in the constitution that these rights are for citizens only and/or that non-citizens should be excluded from these rights?

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Not to mention that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant any rights at all. Not a single one. They merely recognize some of the rights that all people already have. That's why they're called rights, not privileges or some such, after all.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

I thought they were called "inalienable rights" because they applied to everybody, no matter what? Where does it say otherwise?

How can we function as a nation if our marching order is to treat citizens of other countries as less than human and not deserving of basic civil rights? Although, now that I think about it, it would partially explain Bush and company.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

I wrote to my various congress critters, state side and federal side... so far, I have yet to ever get anything back but a cookie cutter letter. Hell even the signature was a copy.

Pretty sad that people like you still believe that congress critters listen.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

My experience is almost always the same -- occasionally I'll get a reply that looks like the rep actually took the time to write back personally, but only if I took a position that the rep shared. To be fair, they probably get a goodly number of letters & it's hard to do all of them justice.

For the most part, since my area is thoroughly Republican, writing to my reps seems to be a waste of time. My HoR rep, in particular, is a powerful Republican (Roy Blunt) who doesn't give a tinker's damn about what his constituents think except inasmuch as it gets him reelected[1]. His counterpart in the Senate (Kit Bond) is the same, and being powerful Congressional Republicans, they are among Bush's chief enablers.

[1] One particular incident sticks: a few years ago in the regional town I lived in, a protest in favor of gay rights was held while Blunt was in town. They invited him to speak with them, but he refused, saying that he doesn't represent "those people". I was under the impression that a representative was supposed to do just that, represent the people of his district or state. Silly me.

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Actually our govt (the US govt) can only do what we give them the permission to do. You don't like it, write your congressman and/or senator. Be vocal, or we can just bitch and complain. Our choice.

And don't forget to include a bigger backhander than his/her corporate sponsors can provide. Then they might take notice of your letter.

545 people decide for all of us

An article someone sent me which makes similar points:

===================
545 People
By Charlie Reese --

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.

In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.

I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget.

He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the speaker of the House?

She is the leader of the majority party.

She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.

If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are r

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

While great in theory, the practice seems to be rather different.

Congress these days seems to be taking care of its constituents nicely. Its true constituents, the corporations who donate to their re-election campaigns. The citizenry is their product, and we have been delivered to their constituents. Unless you are a massive campaign contributor, they're not listening to you. And I mean 'massive' as in the case of 'borderline illegal'.

You say that they can be voted out, but this is very unlikely. Somebody quoted me a figure of 98% re-election results for a sitting Congresscritter, although I haven't found any links on it, so take that figure with a grain of salt. Even if the figure was as low as 66.67% re-elected, replacing a sitting Congresscritter literally takes an act of Congress. Possible, but you'd have better luck playing the lottery.

In answer, this little ditty:

Da Ditty

They took a posse after posse comitatus
You know it's cuz those fuckers hate us
They'll use the mil-i-tary
Our ass to quickly bury
If anonymous, we try to make us.

--fyngyrz

Is the USA still a democracy?

"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?"

I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?

In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors.

But money is not the only purpose. One key to understanding why Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush family want violence is und

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?

Where have you been for the last seven years?

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

How not so?

Operates independently of law, and unilaterally re-writes laws as they are signed.

The US Congress is like Julius Caesar's Senate - soon to be like Tiberius and Caligula's.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

While he's Evil, he's fortunately not a dictator.

George W. Bush:

I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.

And while we laughed and cried in apathy and disenchantment, he decided. And no man, law, constitutional or human right could stop him.

Is this he not a dictator?

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

This also has some truth to it. I think what has happened is that Bush & Co. recognized early on that by controlling the media, not necessarily the majority of the media, but the media the reaches the majority of the people, that they can get away with whatever they like, that only a vocal minority would even be aware of what was going on around them, and that this minority are not the group of people that would protest in a fashion that would actually effect a change.

Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.

Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the /. audience falls into the second category.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

You are still able to post this ...

..providing you are in free speech zone [wikipedia.org]. You are still able to post this on /., but try it somewhere where it matters.

Re:Is the USA still a democracy?

"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?" I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?

Not to get all "Conspiracy Theory," but I kind of wonder if this has been in the works since the time Prescott Bush, father of George H. W. Bush plotted with other business leaders to overthrow the government of FDR. "41," I believe, has been quoted as admiring the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't be all that surprising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot [wikipedia.org]

Wordaphobia

Your hasty disclaimer - that your relevant, mild, and ordinary hypothetical is indeed just a hypothetical - speaks volumes towards your fear of your own government.

I would recommend neither qualifying nor apologizing for such words. Don't let them take away your right of expression by censoring yourself for them. Instead, embrace your words and defend the strength of your feelings with an indignant fury.

You might want to read this essay: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081057 [harpers.org]

You already are overthrown...

confirmed step 1) Make the people uninterested in elections (as far as I'm aware in the USA there's an election for way too many things).
confirmed step 2) Give the people a common enemy (terrorists).
confirmed step 3) Use step 2 to give yourself additional additional powers (partiot act)
confirmed step 4) Divert attention of the people to something more interesting then the situation at home (war).
confirmed step 5) Make use of the chance created by step 4 to give yourself more rights, and strip (or circumvent) the rights of the people.
step 6) Something happens which gives you a reason to use your extra rights (economic collapse?)... among which
step 7) Cancel the next presidential elections for an undefined period.

Notice how close you are?

Re:Is that admissible in court?????

Is it illegal for the police to watch walking down the street without a warrant, no. One of my friends is a cop, he is required by the courts to look through the cars windows for a handicap sticker before he can write a ticket for parking in a handicap space, do you think this is a unreasonable search? Is looking through a window with your eyes any different from using a camera on a pole. from a police helicopter of a blimp? Is taking a picture with a camera from an aircraft any different than looking and is doing something like taking a picture from a aircraft any different than takeing a picture from a spacecraft? Is taking a picture through the your window with visible light coming through really that much different from taking a multi-spectral image of the thermal IR pouring through your houses walls?

The problem isn't that the Government is taking away any rights you have, the problem is believing you have rights that you don't.

Blowback

We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions. This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us.

Re:

It's like we're living in the world of Verhooven's Robocop. Or maybe Miller's cause he's so much cooler...

Re:Blowback

the current administration loves abuses of power The current administration. As if the exponential growth of the US federal government over the past century, in both revenue and power over the people, and the steady consolidation of power into the hands of the few -- everything which makes abuse of power readily possible -- can be attributed to the current administration?

Previous administrations were always pushing the envelope, stretching things further and further, with occasional steps outside. The current administration took a Zippo to the envelope, said "fuck you and your stupid envelope," and called us terrorist sympathizers, traitors, and actual terrorists if we complained.

So this means we all can spy on each other....

.... as soon as google makes the interface accessible.

New generation of privacy concerns

If we take the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

.. how does this apply to aerial or satellite surveillance where we are now talking about technologies that can monitor us everywhere we go and using different techniques than we are used to?

Examples:

• If I am reading e-mail on my phone outdoors (for the sake of argument lets assume it was transmitted securely) and I'm not openly displaying it to others, yet a UAV can see the text because it's above me, am I secure in my effects? What if it is a public place but there is nobody near me and it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could see what I'm looking at? Even in the workplace, when I type my password into my desktop my coworkers, should they be near my desk, look away because their is an assumed need for privacy under some circumstances.
   
• Satelites and UAVs do not just see in the visible spectrum. What happens when they are capable of looking into our homes either actively or passively via different ranges of the spectrum? One one hand, if I am yelling inside my house and there are people outside who overhear, that's my own fault. If a UAV can discern objects and people through a roof, monitor radio emissions and so forth, is that the same thing? My intuition says no, but I doubt it's defined.
   
• Satelites, UAVs, and even cell networks have the ability to track our every move, and by monitoring us all build a social probability map (if you are regularly near other individuals and perhaps at some point have travelled to the same points at the same time or along the same route, you probably know them, can be expanded to group relationship probabilities). Although I don't have much of an expectation of privacy in public places, I do not have an expectation that I should be monitored in my every move and in every relationship I have with other individuals by any entity. However, increasingly that is a) possible, and b) likely.

Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?

I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

"The Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to domestic military operations." [yahoo.com]

We're far beyond the ability to fight back against the stripping of our rights. Fight back and you're a terrorist, pedophile, and communist, of course.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

"domestic military operations"?

"DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS"?

that phrase scares the shit out of me. i want the military standing at the border looking out, not standing on the street corner looking at me.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

Isn't it ironic, that communism and fascism aren't all that different? Its just a different economic model, in that in one, the government OWNS and CONTROLS everything to the benefit of the owners of the government, while in the other, the government is OWNED by a few and controls everything to the benefit of those same few.

Communism, and Fascism, in practice, were the precursors to what we have today. Even socialism is too limited a term to cover the social and economical controls imposed from above.

Those guilty, however, reside next door, not at some white washed building in DC.

Re:New generation of privacy concerns

If we take the fourth amendment

That's the weak point of most arguing for stronger privacy rights. The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now some will flame away with their own personal views about what unreasonable means and what secure in ones papers, etc. means, but the fact is the view that is in vogue in most political circles is that unreasonable means that the person searched was somehow greatly inconvenienced by the search. This doesn' provide a very strong defense for privacy.

So, we are forced to look elsewhere. The greatest argument for privacy comes from the fourteenth amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The pertinent language their regarding privacy in there is the phrase "...property, without due process of law..." Therefore, any person arguing for a strong right to privacy has the fact on their side that the fourteenth amendment requires due process for any act that the government takes to manipulate the property of a citizen, intellectual or otherwise, must come with due process. This is where the libertarians have it right. To have any sort of privacy we must strengthen property rights, intellectual or otherwise. Now I know intellectual property is not a popular concept around here, but is going to become a political necessity in the near future when the cost barrier to record and store massive amounts of data about a citizen becomes lower and lower.

In short, forget the fourth amendment. No matter its original intent, it's been chopped up and rendered almost useless when it comes to effectively guarding privacy. A spying program is essentially a government requisition of private intellectual property. Due process is a much stronger defense for privacy.

If There Was Any Chance...

If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.

This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.

More on the "advanced spy technology"

Last year CNET reported [news.com] on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".

Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout [youtube.com], Global Hawk [youtube.com], Predator 2 [youtube.com], and the Dominator [youtube.com], their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.

According to DefenseNews [defensenews.com] the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).

Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.

This will be interesting to observe...

And it definitely is a case for "Wehret den Anfaengen". Somehow I doubt that the US population will do much better than others to prevent the creation of first a sueveillance state and then a dictatorship. Of course this is proceeding slower than most other efforts in that direction in the past, but I think if I would be living in the US, the time to become really afraid is now. Probably the best chance against this is the next election. Seems for once you have acceptable candidtaes all around, which must be a first in recent history.

"Fighting Americans since 2000"

... another violation of your rights, brought to you by Bush & co & sons. Coming to a theater near you. Enjoy.

Watchbird

Has anyone else seen the "Masters of Science Fiction" episode "Watchbird"? If you haven't, do.

Avoiding the technical issues of having an autonomus flying robot that can stun & kill people, the actual story of how politicians would use something developed for military use decide that a modified version could work just as well for domestic use, isn't far from the truth as has been shown here in the UK when a council used the RIPA to spy on a family for a month (including watching them in their house and following them in their car) because they applied for their 3-year old to go to a primary school and the council wanted to make sure the family wasn't cheating the system.

It proves that is the powers are there for the people in charge to use then there's no way in hell they won't eventually (ab)use those powers.

There's a website I came across last year...

...that vowed to track abuses of power, defend privacy rights and freedoms, fight fascism, defend the constitution.

It was based in the south, covered with the flags of the USA and the CSA, and railed against Clinton for the filegate thing, Waco, etc.

Odd thing was, it hasn't been updated since around 2000, the forums have gone strangely silent. Not a peep about Bush.

I think perhaps these brave defenders of freedom are so outraged by Bush, so aware of constitutional issues that they say the threat more clearly than others, and that they have decided to take their movement underground, make it more clandestine.

Yeah, that's probably it.

One nation...

... under surveillance.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm.

Imagine your government wrongfully accusing you of a crime and thereafter tracking your every movement and association.

At what point do we say enough is enough? We can already catch kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk. We already have helicopters. At some point the potential for abuse, which we know based on virtually every aspect of the Bush administration and governments worldwide will be realized eventually, must outweigh the marginal benefit we gain.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

I'll take my chances on the small risk of danger from kidnappers and the ilk rather than the given total decay of privacy. It doesn't even matter if any if it is admissible in court, they just give the local police a "anonymous tip" and then they show up and search people, all you need for a search is reasonable suspicion, it's not near as restrictive as getting a warrant. I'll take the TINY risk from criminals over the certainty of abuse.

We already have an FBI!

I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense. If you want to use federal powers for good police use, there already is an FBI.

What these people are trying to do is give LOCAL COPS the ability to access top secret spy technology.

Will these local cops have top secret military clearance? That is not being mentioned. Will these local cops have to follow all the federal laws?

Wtf is going to be next? Giving corporations police powers and making CEO's into deputy and letting them access all the top secret spy satelites and launch UAVS?

Do you realize what this does? The domestic law enforcement is even more filled with moles than the federal law enforcement. So instead of having to worry about the Soviets, the domestic law enforcement has to worry about the bloods, the crips, mafia, MS13, the vice lords, and all these other gangs and mafias who have infiltrated and who have moles all throughout domestic law enforcement and police departments all over this country.

If we give the domestic law enforcement access to all this technology, don't you realize that you'll be giving even more power and access to the very criminals you think this technology will be targeting?

You think they are stupid? They read the news too, they go to Slashdot too, their spies in the police department soon may have the power to look into your house and see what you do.

Re:All of the paranoid responses..

Chance for abuse? CHANCE FOR ABUSE?!

Are you new to the world? This administration has abused every single bit of leverage or opening they've been given. You're damned right we're paranoid, and our government has demonstrated repeatedly why we need to be. Congress is questioning the legality of it while Bush is burning every copy of the Constitution he can find. I don't care at all whether this is legal - it cannot be allowed. As a nation, we elected a whole lot of congressmen in 2006 for the purpose of reigning in Bush and the Iraq war. Not only have they utterly failed to do so, they've allowed our civil liberties to be even further trampled upon. Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for blocking the administration's abuse of power, so we as voters are left with a choice between evicting as many as possible and starting over, or just electing the same old crew to do the same old job.

I pray that all the Slashdotters who complain about stories like this (and who are citizens the USA) are going to use their right to vote this November to make their voices heard.