FBI behind mysterious surveillance aircraft over US cities
Jun 2, 3:27 AM (ET)
By JACK GILLUM, EILEEN SULLIVAN and ERIC TUCKER
(AP) In this photo taken May 26, 2015, a small plane flies near Manassas Regional Airport...
Full Image
Google sponsored links
Grandstream - Award Winning IP Surveillance Products and Solutions
www.grandstream.com
Bigger Than The iPhone - Apple's newest innovation could be even bigger than the iPhone.
topstockanalysts.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.
The planes' surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge's approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, an AP review found.
Aerial surveillance represents a changing frontier for law enforcement, providing what the government maintains is an important tool in criminal, terrorism or intelligence probes. But the program raises questions about whether there should be updated policies protecting civil liberties as new technologies pose intrusive opportunities for government spying.
U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department's inspector general.
(AP) In this photo taken May 26, 2015, a small plane flies near Manassas Regional Airport...
Full Image
"The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." Allen added that the FBI's planes "are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance."
But the planes can capture video of unrelated criminal activity on the ground that could be handed over for prosecutions.
Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare.
Details confirmed by the FBI track closely with published reports since at least 2003 that a government surveillance program might be behind suspicious-looking planes slowly circling neighborhoods. The AP traced at least 50 aircraft back to the FBI, and identified more than 100 flights since late April orbiting both major cities and rural areas.
One of the planes, photographed in flight last week by the AP in northern Virginia, bristled with unusual antennas under its fuselage and a camera on its left side. A federal budget document from 2010 mentioned at least 115 planes, including 90 Cessna aircraft, in the FBI's surveillance fleet.
(AP) Graphic shows three distinct flight paths over major U.S. cities conducted by the...
Full Image
The FBI also occasionally helps local police with aerial support, such as during the recent disturbance in Baltimore that followed the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray, who sustained grievous injuries while in police custody. Those types of requests are reviewed by senior FBI officials.
The surveillance flights comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said. Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance.
Details about the flights come as the Justice Department seeks to navigate privacy concerns arising from aerial surveillance by unmanned aircrafts, or drones. President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance, and has called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified programs.
"These are not your grandparents' surveillance aircraft," said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, calling the flights significant "if the federal government is maintaining a fleet of aircraft whose purpose is to circle over American cities, especially with the technology we know can be attached to those aircraft."
During the past few weeks, the AP tracked planes from the FBI's fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus the District of Columbia, most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft. These included parts of Houston, Phoenix, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and Southern California.
Evolving technology can record higher-quality video from long distances, even at night, and can capture certain identifying information from cellphones using a device known as a "cell-site simulator" — or Stingray, to use one of the product's brand names. These can trick pinpointed cellphones into revealing identification numbers of subscribers, including those not suspected of a crime.
Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare, although the AP found in recent weeks FBI flights orbiting large, enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection. Those included above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota.
After The Washington Post revealed flights by two planes circling over Baltimore in early May, the AP began analyzing detailed flight data and aircraft-ownership registrations that shared similar addresses and flight patterns. That review found some FBI missions circled above at least 40,000 residents during a single flight over Anaheim, California, in late May, according to Census data and records provided by the website FlightRadar24.com.
Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc., which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns.
"Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams," the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $5.1 million for the program.
Recently, independent journalists and websites have cited companies traced to post office boxes in Virginia, including one shared with the Justice Department. The AP analyzed similar data since early May, while also drawing upon aircraft registration documents, business records and interviews with U.S. officials to understand the scope of the operations.
The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI's request because the companies' names — as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department — are listed on public documents and in government databases.
At least 13 front companies that AP identified being actively used by the FBI are registered to post office boxes in Bristow, Virginia, which is near a regional airport used for private and charter flights. Only one of them appears in state business records.
Included on most aircraft registrations is a mysterious name, Robert Lindley. He is listed as chief executive and has at least three distinct signatures among the companies. Two documents include a signature for Robert Taylor, which is strikingly similar to one of Lindley's three handwriting patterns.
The FBI would not say whether Lindley is a U.S. government employee. The AP unsuccessfully tried to reach Lindley at phone numbers registered to people of the same name in the Washington area since Monday.
Law enforcement officials said Justice Department lawyers approved the decision to create fictitious companies to protect the flights' operational security and that the Federal Aviation Administration was aware of the practice. One of the Lindley-headed companies shares a post office box openly used by the Justice Department.
Such elusive practices have endured for decades. A 1990 report by the then-General Accounting Office noted that, in July 1988, the FBI had moved its "headquarters-operated" aircraft into a company that wasn't publicly linked to the bureau.
The FBI does not generally obtain warrants to record video from its planes of people moving outside in the open, but it also said that under a new policy it has recently begun obtaining court orders to use cell-site simulators. The Obama administration had until recently been directing local authorities through secret agreements not to reveal their own use of the devices, even encouraging prosecutors to drop cases rather than disclose the technology's use in open court.
A Justice Department memo last month also expressly barred its component law enforcement agencies from using unmanned drones "solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment" and said they are to be used only in connection with authorized investigations and activities. A department spokeswoman said the policy applied only to unmanned aircraft systems rather than piloted airplanes.
---
Associated Press writers Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City; Joan Lowy and Ted Bridis in Washington; Randall Chase in Wilmington, Delaware; and news researchers Monika Mathur in Washington and Rhonda Shafner in New York contributed to this report.
Thats because you're a dern ferenner with no rights. In America HURR we traded good coffee and healthy living for the Bill of Rights. You traded good food for no rights.
We don't judge. We just shout our freedom by wearing Hawaiian shirts, undersized shorts, black socks, flip flops, and shout at nonEnglishspeakers so they can learn our language.
As the immortal bard once said: once more unto the breech, dear friends.
Frazzled wrote: Thats because you're a dern ferenner with no rights. In America HURR we traded good coffee and healthy living for the Bill of Rights. You traded good food for no rights.
We don't judge. We just shout our freedom by wearing Hawaiian shirts, undersized shorts, black socks, flip flops, and shout at nonEnglishspeakers so they can learn our language.
As the immortal bard once said: once more unto the breech, dear friends.
Get! Get on atta hurr you god dern ferenner!
Like clockwork, the government takes the next step in the process it swears to us that it is not participating in.
So what happens if FLIR records an image of an underage child in a state of undress?
They'll say he was looking at ISIS propaganda online and was an imminent threat due to acquiring a "military style" BB gun for Christmas, therefore it was justified in the name of keeping us all safe from the ever-looming terrorist threat.
im actually a bit confused, some of you actually seem bothered by this and some of you seem to be pretending to be bothered to make light of the situation.
1: No law prohibits the US Government nor law enforcement agencies from aerial surveillance. It is not a violation of your right to privacy since the aircraft are not directly taking pictures of the inside of your house. The second you step out into the world you are leaving privacy and entering public domain.
2: the child indecency thing, not sure if your being sarcastic since its hard to tell with some people these days. it is furthermore not against the law to accidentally film indecent exposure. By the logic presented it would mean that if some kid dropped trow in the middle of the mall everyone should be arrested for viewing a naked underage child.
3: Who cares? The US government and IC can not monitor your cell phone usage nor utilize it to geolocate you without a warrant so calm down.
I think its more of a case of "Laws have not caught up to Technology" We are still finding ways to deal with online harassment.
I very much feel like using heat Something or other to see inside my house is a violation of my privacy. What if my nextdoor neighbor is the one running it and findouts Im cheating on my wife? He could very well use that against me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think its more of a case of "Laws have not caught up to Technology" We are still finding ways to deal with online harassment.
I very much feel like using heat Something or other to see inside my house is a violation of my privacy. What if my nextdoor neighbor is the one running it and findouts Im cheating on my wife? He could very well use that against me.
We aren't talking about civilian use of technology, the story is about the FBI utilizing surveillance aircraft. As far as Infrared technology goes, you have no idea how useless it is. you don't see body parts you don't see skin all you see is a red blob with differing shades of yellow and other colors. It would be impossible to tell if someone was having sex, exercising or having a shouting match with someone.
And as mentioned above, these planes are not randomly utilizing surveillance on people for fun they are either actively targeting a suspect OR they are just airborne in case the need arises. So where is the problem?
whembly wrote: Ghazzy... if it's not violating the 4th... it's awfully fething close.
'Tis why there's large segment of the population who don't trust the Government.
It's how Denny Hasert get in trouble with the Feds. The Feds looking for an act to fit the crime.
the 4th amendment protects US citizens from "Unreasonable" search and Seizure. The principle reason behind this amendment was to keep the government and police from entering a home and searching and seizing items from inside the home without first gaining a warrant. If it is perfectly fine to operate security cameras in public areas why would it not be allowed to mount them on planes that fly around public areas. This is perfectly within the law....until someone purposely aims a camera into a home or building, then it becomes a violation. But with how the law is currently written if the camera is sweeping by and spots a blatant violation of the law they can use that as probable cause.
I assume your unfamiliar with the concept of a Camera. Just because the plane has to fly over something because we have yet to come up with Vector dancing technology does not mean the Camera is A: turned on or B: Aimed at the thing directly below it.
So far the only points raised against this article have been conspiracy theory and a lack of knowledge about current technology. Why is it that everyone thinks their lives are so important and interesting that the US Government is monitoring you?
I assume your unfamiliar with the concept of a Camera. Just because the plane has to fly over something because we have yet to come up with Vector dancing technology does not mean the Camera is A: turned on or B: Aimed at the thing directly below it.
So far the only points raised against this article have been conspiracy theory and a lack of knowledge about current technology. Why is it that everyone thinks their lives are so important and interesting that the US Government is monitoring you?
You just said aiming equipment. Pointing a camera and taking pictures is aiming.
I assume your unfamiliar with the concept of a Camera. Just because the plane has to fly over something because we have yet to come up with Vector dancing technology does not mean the Camera is A: turned on or B: Aimed at the thing directly below it.
So far the only points raised against this article have been conspiracy theory and a lack of knowledge about current technology. Why is it that everyone thinks their lives are so important and interesting that the US Government is monitoring you?
You just said aiming equipment. Pointing a camera and taking pictures is aiming.
And thats cameras. What else are they doing?
So your entire basis for argument is that they have Cameras therefore they must be violating the 4th amendment. Your going to have to come up with a better argument then that.
I own a gun. I must be killing people with it right? What else would I be doing?
I assume your unfamiliar with the concept of a Camera. Just because the plane has to fly over something because we have yet to come up with Vector dancing technology does not mean the Camera is A: turned on or B: Aimed at the thing directly below it.
So far the only points raised against this article have been conspiracy theory and a lack of knowledge about current technology. Why is it that everyone thinks their lives are so important and interesting that the US Government is monitoring you?
You just said aiming equipment. Pointing a camera and taking pictures is aiming.
And thats cameras. What else are they doing?
So your entire basis for argument is that they have Cameras therefore they must be violating the 4th amendment. Your going to have to come up with a better argument then that.
I own a gun. I must be killing people with it right? What else would I be doing?
I'm just following your own argumenn t which you seem to have ignored.
Why are they doing it? I answered that in an earlier post. They are prosecuting legitimate targets they have warrants for or they are simply in the air awaiting tasking.
Why the shell companies? Numerous answers, Security and safety being paramount. Why openly show your hand to the criminal elements in our society if you can legally hide the aircraft under a misnomer?
Frazzled wrote: Simply in the air awaiting tasking? What are they flying CAP?
Well for one thing, pilots have to maintain a certain amount of flying time every month so they will just fly for the sake of flying. Secondly, if a source hints that something might be going on that day the FBI might launch a few planes to provide over watch and be in the air already as opposed to having to wait for however long it takes to get a bird ready and in the air.
As far as providing CAP? kinda hard since they aren't armed
Again this boils down to whether or not you are being sarcastic. Some of the ridiculous things I have seen posted I have assumed were Sarcasm only to discover that the OP was completely serious. if you are being serious I have to question your train off thought and how many conspiracy theories you read daily. If you are being sarcastic....stop trolling
Ghazkuul wrote: So your entire basis for argument is that they have Cameras therefore they must be violating the 4th amendment. Your going to have to come up with a better argument then that.
People are coming under surveillance (with both traditional optic cameras and FLIR which can see into dwellings) and having their movements captured in a manner that is not incidental to another permitted law enforcement action, nor has been conducted under a warrant from the court establishing probable cause.
Ghazkuul wrote: I own a gun. I must be killing people with it right? What else would I be doing?
Only if it's loaded, the safety is off, you're pointing it at people, and pressing the trigger. Sort of like how a camera works
Again this boils down to whether or not you are being sarcastic. Some of the ridiculous things I have seen posted I have assumed were Sarcasm only to discover that the OP was completely serious. if you are being serious I have to question your train off thought and how many conspiracy theories you read daily. If you are being sarcastic....stop trolling
No sarcasm. I absolutely don't believe them. revelations about the NSA have shown that the government's trustworthiness in domestic surveillance is less than nothing.
Ghazkuul wrote: Well for one thing, pilots have to maintain a certain amount of flying time every month so they will just fly for the sake of flying. Secondly, if a source hints that something might be going on that day the FBI might launch a few planes to provide over watch and be in the air already as opposed to having to wait for however long it takes to get a bird ready and in the air.
As far as providing CAP? kinda hard since they aren't armed
If they simply need hours then;
1) Why admit there is a covert surveillance program?
2) Why hide it behind shell companies?
3) Why the avoidance of judicial oversight?
4) Why are the pilots not flying standard, unmodified planes with oversight?
Ghazkuul wrote: Well for one thing, pilots have to maintain a certain amount of flying time every month so they will just fly for the sake of flying. Secondly, if a source hints that something might be going on that day the FBI might launch a few planes to provide over watch and be in the air already as opposed to having to wait for however long it takes to get a bird ready and in the air.
As far as providing CAP? kinda hard since they aren't armed
If they simply need hours then;
1) Why admit there is a covert surveillance program?
2) Why hide it behind shell companies?
3) Why the avoidance of judicial oversight?
4) Why are the pilots not flying standard, unmodified planes with oversight?
your taking things Im saying out of the context they were put in. Why did they admit the surveillance programs exist? because they aren't classified, but they try to disguise the actual aircraft for security reasons. The existence of Governmental agencies is not classified but they do their best to blend in with their surroundings. Why draw attention to yourself specifically if you are an INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
#2: Same answer as #1
#3: What avoidance? you are inferring they are doing this and have no evidence to back it up beyond conspiracy theories and news agencies guessing.
#4: A standard unmodified plane can't very well operate in a surveillance or intelligence mode can it? if they flew standard unmodified planes then they would be no different then a Cessna pilot looking out a window. USELESS.
Because airports are open to the public, each plane is legally required to have a tail number that is easy to track, and that tail number is linked to publicly-available records of who owns the plane. It would be too easy to pass around "the FBI plane is in the air, don't do anything right now" warnings if they openly identify them as police aircraft.
4) Why are the pilots not flying standard, unmodified planes with oversight?
Because operating a second set of aircraft (which may or may not be a perfect match for training purposes, depending on the degree of modifications) is an extra expense that has no purpose besides saying "we're not doing anything suspicious".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People are coming under surveillance (with both traditional optic cameras and FLIR which can see into dwellings) and having their movements captured in a manner that is not incidental to another permitted law enforcement action, nor has been conducted under a warrant from the court establishing probable cause.
But hasn't it been pretty well established that the police can look at the outside of your home all they want without a warrant, as long as they do it from public property (which the air over your house is) and don't go inside your walls? Getting around the walls with FLIR (or other similar tools) is an issue, but I don't see how flying overhead with a camera is any more of a violation than driving down the street with a camera.
your taking things Im saying out of the context they were put in. Why did they admit the surveillance programs exist? because they aren't classified, but they try to disguise the actual aircraft for security reasons. The existence of Governmental agencies is not classified but they do their best to blend in with their surroundings. Why draw attention to yourself specifically if you are an INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
#2: Same answer as #1
#3: What avoidance? you are inferring they are doing this and have no evidence to back it up beyond conspiracy theories and news agencies guessing.
#4: A standard unmodified plane can't very well operate in a surveillance or intelligence mode can it? if they flew standard unmodified planes then they would be no different then a Cessna pilot looking out a window. USELESS.
At no point were you taken out of context. There is a difference between disguising the actual aircraft and establishing shell corporations to hide them.
The whole point of the 4th Amendment is to give protection to private individuals, especially in areas where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy (such as their own home). Some interesting reading;
FOURTH AMENDMENT
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Electronic Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment
The Olmstead Case.—With the invention of the microphone, the telephone, and the dictograph recorder, it became possible to “eavesdrop” with much greater secrecy and expediency. Inevitably, the use of electronic devices in law enforcement was challenged, and in 1928 the Court reviewed convictions obtained on the basis of evidence gained through taps on telephone wires in violation of state law. On a five–to– four vote, the Court held that wiretapping was not within the confines of the Fourth Amendment.131 Chief Justice Taft, writing the opinion of the Court, relied on two lines of argument for the conclusion. First, inasmuch as the Amendment was designed to protect one’s property interest in his premises, there was no search so long as there was no physical trespass on premises owned or controlled by a defendant. Second, all the evidence obtained had been secured by hearing, and the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a seizure, for the Amendment referred only to the seizure of tangible items. Furthermore, the violation of state law did not render the evidence excludible, since the exclusionary rule operated only on evidence seized in violation of the Constitution.132
[p.1251]
Federal Communications Act.—Six years after the decision in the Olmstead case, Congress enacted the Federal Communications Act and included in Sec. 605 of the Act a broadly worded proscription on which the Court seized to place some limitation upon governmental wiretapping.133 Thus, in Nardone v. United States,134 the Court held that wiretapping by federal officers could violate Sec. 605 if the officers both intercepted and divulged the contents of the conversation they overheard, and that testimony in court would constitute a form of prohibited divulgence. Such evidence was therefore excluded, although wiretapping was not illegal under the Court’s interpretation if the information was not used outside the governmental agency. Because Sec. 605 applied to intrastate as well as interstate transmissions,135 there was no question about the applicability of the ban to state police officers, but the Court declined to apply either the statute or the due process clause to require the exclusion of such evidence from state criminal trials.136 State efforts to legalize wiretapping pursuant to court orders were held by the Court to be precluded by the fact that Congress in Sec. 605 had intended to occupy the field completely to the exclusion of the States.137
Nontelephonic Electronic Surveillance.—The trespass rationale of Olmstead was utilized in cases dealing with “bugging” of premises rather than with tapping of telephones. Thus, in Goldman v. United States,138 the Court found no Fourth Amendment violation when a listening device was placed against a party wall so[p.1252]that conversations were overheard on the other side. But when officers drove a “spike mike” into a party wall until it came into contact with a heating duct and thus broadcast defendant’s conversations, the Court determined that the trespass brought the case within the Amendment.139 In so holding, the Court, without alluding to the matter, overruled in effect the second rationale of Olmstead, the premise that conversations could not be seized.
The Berger and Katz Cases.—In Berger v. New York,140 the Court confirmed the obsolesence of the alternative holding in Olmstead that conversations could not be seized in the Fourth Amendment sense.141 Berger held unconstitutional on its face a state eavesdropping statute under which judges were authorized to issue warrants permitting police officers to trespass on private premises to install listening devices. The warrants were to be issued upon a showing of “reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded.” For the five–Justice majority, Justice Clark discerned several constitutional defects in the law. “First, . . . eavesdropping is authorized without requiring belief that any particular offense has been or is being committed; nor that the ‘property’ sought, the conversations, be particularly described.
“The purpose of the probable–cause requirement of the Fourth Amendment to keep the state out of constitutionally protected areas until it has reason to believe that a specific crime has been or is being committed is thereby wholly aborted. Likewise the statute’s failure to describe with particularity the conversations sought gives the officer a roving commission to ‘seize’ any and all conversations. It is true that the statute requires the naming of ‘the person or persons whose communications, conversations or discussions are to be overheard or recorded. . . .’ But this does no more than identify the person whose constitutionally protected area is to be invaded rather than ‘particularly describing’ the communications, conversations, or discussions to be seized. . . . Secondly, authorization of eavesdropping for a two–month period is the equivalent of a series of intrusions, searches, and seizures pursuant to a single showing of probable cause. Prompt execution is also avoided. During such a long and continuous (24 hours a day) period the con[p.1253]versations of any and all persons coming into the area covered by the device will be seized indiscriminately and without regard to their connection with the crime under investigation. Moreover, the statute permits. . . extensions of the original two–month period—presumably for two months each—on a mere showing that such extension is ‘in the public interest.’. . . Third, the statute places no termination date on the eavesdrop once the conversation sought is seized. . . . Finally, the statute’s procedure, necessarily because its success depends on secrecy, has no requirement for notice as do conventional warrants, nor does it overcome this defect by requiring some showing of special facts. On the contrary, it permits unconsented entry without any showing of exigent circumstances. Such a showing of exigency, in order to avoid notice, would appear more important in eavesdropping, with its inherent dangers, than that required when conventional procedures of search and seizure are utilized. Nor does the statute provide for a return on the warrant thereby leaving full discretion in the officer as to the use of seized conversations of innocent as well as guilty parties. In short, the statute’s blanket grant of permission to eavesdrop is without adequate judicial supervision or protective procedures.”142
Both Justices Black and White in dissent accused the Berger majority of so construing the Fourth Amendment that no wiretapping– eavesdropping statute could pass constitutional scrutiny,143 and in Katz v. United States,144 the Court in an opinion by one of the Berger dissenters, Justice Stewart, modified some of its language and pointed to Court approval of some types of statutorily–authorized electronic surveillance. Just as Berger had confirmed that one rationale of the Olmstead decision, the inapplicability of “seizure” to conversations, was no longer valid, Katz disposed of the other rationale. In the latter case, officers had affixed a listening device to the outside wall of a telephone booth regularly used by Katz and activated it each time he entered; since there had been no physical trespass into the booth, the lower courts held the Fourth Amendment not relevant. The Court disagreed, saying that “once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects peo[p.1254]ple—and not simply ‘areas’—against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.”145 Because the surveillance of Katz’s telephone calls had not been authorized by a magistrate, it was invalid; however, the Court thought that “it is clear that this surveillance was so narrowly circumscribed that a duly authorized magistrate, properly notified of the need for such investigation, specifically informed of the basis on which it was to proceed, and clearly apprised of the precise intrusion it would entail, could constitutionally have authorized, with appropriate safeguards, the very limited search and seizure that the Government asserts in fact took place.”146 The notice requirement, which had loomed in Berger as an obstacle to successful electronic surveillance, was summarily disposed of.147 Finally, Justice Stewart observed that it was unlikely that electronic surveillance would ever come under any of the established exceptions so that it could be conducted without prior judicial approval.148
[p.1255]
Following Katz, Congress enacted in 1968 a comprehensive statute authorizing federal officers and permitting state officers pursuant to state legislation complying with the federal law to seek warrants for electronic surveillance to investigate violations of prescribed classes of criminal legislation.149 The Court has not yet had occasion to pass on the federal statute and to determine whether its procedures and authorizations comport with the standards sketched in Osborn, Berger, and Katz or whether those standards are somewhat more flexible than they appear to be on the faces of the opinions.150
Warrantless “National Security” Electronic Surveillance.—In Katz v. United States,151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in “national security cases” electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to “bug” in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of “inherent” presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a “reasonable” search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required.152 Whether or not a search was[p.1256]reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government’s duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy.153 This protection was even more needed in “national security cases” than in cases of “ordinary” crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth.154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required.155
The question of the scope of the President’s constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled.156 Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to[p.1257]acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any “United States person” will be overheard.157
Dreadclaw69 wrote: There is a difference between disguising the actual aircraft and establishing shell corporations to hide them.
There is no difference between the two, because of how aircraft registration is handled. If you want to disguise the aircraft you have to register it to a shell corporation. Let's consider the airplane I flew for my first solo. If you were at the airport watching you would see "N-6027A" prominently displayed on the tail. A quick google search gives you the FAA registration information: manufacturing information, current owner, etc. In this case N-6027A is now being used by a different aircraft, but the FAA helpfully provides the previous records. So we scroll down the page a bit and find "my" N-6027A. It's a Delaware corporation but Flightgest is the correct name of the rental business and flight school that used to own the plane, until it was exported to Germany in 2008.
Now imagine a hypothetical FBI aircraft openly registered to the FBI. You walk by the parking area at your local airport and google the tail numbers on all of the aircraft, and you see that N-12345 is registered to the FBI. Now when you're doing something illegal you make sure to pay attention to whether N-12345 is on the ground or not.
The whole point of the 4th Amendment is to give protection to private individuals, especially in areas where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy (such as their own home).
I don't see how you can establish any legitimate expectation of privacy for aerial photography (by conventional cameras, not FLIR/radar/whatever). I could go take the exact same pictures that the FBI took, and there's nothing you can do about it. The only way you could expect the exterior of your house to be private is if you don't bother to think about the possibility of someone looking at you from the air.
Peregrine wrote: There is no difference between the two, because of how aircraft registration is handled. If you want to disguise the aircraft you have to register it to a shell corporation. Let's consider the airplane I flew for my first solo. If you were at the airport watching you would see "N-6027A" prominently displayed on the tail. A quick google search gives you the FAA registration information: manufacturing information, current owner, etc. In this case N-6027A is now being used by a different aircraft, but the FAA helpfully provides the previous records. So we scroll down the page a bit and find "my" N-6027A. It's a Delaware corporation but Flightgest is the correct name of the rental business and flight school that used to own the plane, until it was exported to Germany in 2008.
Now imagine a hypothetical FBI aircraft openly registered to the FBI. You walk by the parking area at your local airport and google the tail numbers on all of the aircraft, and you see that N-12345 is registered to the FBI. Now when you're doing something illegal you make sure to pay attention to whether N-12345 is on the ground or not.
Because the FBI will obviously have no other planes than N-12345. And the police only have one car so if you see that parked somewhere you don't have to worry, right?
We were talking about disguising the planes. I made no mention of changing the identifying numbers.
Peregrine wrote: I don't see how you can establish any legitimate expectation of privacy for aerial photography (by conventional cameras, not FLIR/radar/whatever). I could go take the exact same pictures that the FBI took, and there's nothing you can do about it. The only way you could expect the exterior of your house to be private is if you don't bother to think about the possibility of someone looking at you from the air.
If I am on my property then I have an expectation of privacy. If you are taking pictures of me on my property without my permission, and in violation of my reasonable expectation of privacy then you may be subject to civil law.
And there is a huge difference between a private citizen taking pictures (even if they are doing so in contravention of someone's reasonable expectation of privacy) and a law enforcement agency doing the same thing. That is why LEOs and the FBI must obtain a warrant to place an individual under surveillance.
Peregrine wrote: There is no difference between the two, because of how aircraft registration is handled. If you want to disguise the aircraft you have to register it to a shell corporation. Let's consider the airplane I flew for my first solo. If you were at the airport watching you would see "N-6027A" prominently displayed on the tail. A quick google search gives you the FAA registration information: manufacturing information, current owner, etc. In this case N-6027A is now being used by a different aircraft, but the FAA helpfully provides the previous records. So we scroll down the page a bit and find "my" N-6027A. It's a Delaware corporation but Flightgest is the correct name of the rental business and flight school that used to own the plane, until it was exported to Germany in 2008.
Now imagine a hypothetical FBI aircraft openly registered to the FBI. You walk by the parking area at your local airport and google the tail numbers on all of the aircraft, and you see that N-12345 is registered to the FBI. Now when you're doing something illegal you make sure to pay attention to whether N-12345 is on the ground or not.
Because the FBI will obviously have no other planes than N-12345. And the police only have one car so if you see that parked somewhere you don't have to worry, right?
We were talking about disguising the planes. I made no mention of changing the identifying numbers.
.
You do realize police have these things called "under cover police Cars" and for that matter "under cover officers". Maybe they aren't as prevalent where you live, but down here everytime I see a Crown Royal or a Charger I assume its an under cover cop.
As far as "Disguising planes" its the same principle. Never announce your presence, especially if you are a intelligence organization. If you don't understand that then you are way to concerned with whatever deep dark secrets you are doing in your home then what the actual law says.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Because the FBI will obviously have no other planes than N-12345. And the police only have one car so if you see that parked somewhere you don't have to worry, right?
That's why you track all of them, not just one. The point is that having a giant "THIS IS AN FBI PLANE" sign is counterproductive, for the same reasons that the police use unmarked cars.
We were talking about disguising the planes. I made no mention of changing the identifying numbers.
You do understand that the identifying numbers are prominently displayed on the plane and obscuring them would be a violation of federal law, right? I'm sure the FBI could arrange some kind of special permission to hide their tail numbers, but that would immediately mark those aircraft as suspicious and probably generate a lot of reports to the FAA and local police about them. It's much easier to just register the plane to a shell company, which makes it just one more anonymous civilian aircraft registered to a Delaware corporation.
If I am on my property then I have an expectation of privacy.
No you don't. If you're standing outside your front door and openly visible from the street then you have no expectation of privacy.
If you are taking pictures of me on my property without my permission, and in violation of my reasonable expectation of privacy then you may be subject to civil law.
I would only be "subject to civil law" in the sense that anyone can file a civil suit, regardless of its merits, and I might decide that settling out of court and removing the offending pictures is cheaper than fighting you in court. However, from a legal perspective, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just ask Barbra Streisand how well the "sue anyone who takes pictures of your house from the air" approach works.
And there is a huge difference between a private citizen taking pictures (even if they are doing so in contravention of someone's reasonable expectation of privacy) and a law enforcement agency doing the same thing. That is why LEOs and the FBI must obtain a warrant to place an individual under surveillance.
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
Ghazkuul wrote: If you don't understand that then you are way to concerned with whatever deep dark secrets you are doing in your home then what the actual law says.
I have already demonstrated what the law says above, and your "deep dark secrets" comment adds nothing to the discussion at hand.
For a law enforcement agency to conduct surveillance on a person in an area where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy (such as a home) then a warrant is granted once the petitioner has demonstrated probable cause. The FBI has not obtained a warrant to overfly the general public to record their activities wholesale because it is a flagrant breach of the 4th Amendment. Mass surveillance of citizens is wholly unreasonable.
Peregrine wrote: No you don't. If you're standing outside your front door and openly visible from the street then you have no expectation of privacy.
So we've gone from discussing the expectation of privacy within your own dwelling to expectations of privacy when in public view. That is a wholesale shifting of the discussion.
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
This concerned the growing of a prohibited substance in a greenhouse - we have been discussing expectations of privacy within a dwelling, and the implications of FLIR which can see into a house and observe the activities of the occupants. From your link;
"As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment."
Using FLIR to observe the occupants is clearly observing the "intimate details connected with the use of the home"
Also this case was limited to one time surveillance. We do not know if this was what the FBI limited themselves to.
If they were not limiting themselves then this opens up United States v Vargas; https://www.eff.org/files/2014/12/15/vargas_order.pdf "This reasonable expectation of privacy prohibits the warrantless, continuous, and covert recording of Mr. Vargas’ front yard"
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So we've gone from discussing the expectation of privacy within your own dwelling to expectations of privacy when in public view. That is a wholesale shifting of the discussion.
You're right about the shifting, but wrong about who did it. Let's review your first post that I responded to (emphasis mine):
People are coming under surveillance (with both traditional optic cameras and FLIR which can see into dwellings) and having their movements captured in a manner that is not incidental to another permitted law enforcement action, nor has been conducted under a warrant from the court establishing probable cause.
You started off by talking about optical cameras which do not see within your home, and now you're trying to limit it to FLIR and other ways of looking within the walls. And you'll notice that I very clearly said that the "looking inside the walls" kind is a problem.
Note that this was a lower court decision and the government dropped the relevant case before it could be appealed to higher courts, so it has limited jurisdiction and it is uncertain whether or not the ruling would be upheld on appeal.
Peregrine wrote: You started off by talking about optical cameras which do not see within your home, and now you're trying to limit it to FLIR and other ways of looking within the walls. And you'll notice that I very clearly said that the "looking inside the walls" kind is a problem.
We have been talking about FLIR since the second post of this thread.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: We have been talking about FLIR since the second post of this thread.
Then why did you specifically mention "traditional optic cameras" as something that is a problem? And why did you claim that I would be violating your right to privacy by taking pictures of you from the air?
As someone who works with drones on a daily basis, there is no difference between traditional optics and FLIR. They come in the same package when we're talking about these things.
But, FLIR does not just let you look inside of a house. There is so much residual radiation that you cannot make out any details. All anyone would see about a house with FLIR, is if you've got a fire going in your fire place.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: We have been talking about FLIR since the second post of this thread.
Then why did you specifically mention "traditional optic cameras" as something that is a problem? And why did you claim that I would be violating your right to privacy by taking pictures of you from the air?
The quote in full;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People are coming under surveillance (with both traditional optic cameras and FLIR which can see into dwellings) and having their movements captured in a manner that is not incidental to another permitted law enforcement action, nor has been conducted under a warrant from the court establishing probable cause.
I mentioned that both methods were being used, but the primary discussion has been centered on FLIR.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I mentioned that both methods were being used, but the primary discussion has been centered on FLIR.
No, the primary discussion in this thread has been about the shell companies and the general concept of aerial photography, and your "it's only about FLIR" claim is kind of silly. But let's take the opportunity to clarify your position: are you in fact only opposed to aerial photography by FLIR (or any other wall-penetrating technology)? Do you have any objection to warrantless "conventional" photography that only captures what a human eye (with magnifying lenses when necessary) can see? And do you withdraw your objections to the shell companies, now that you've been given reasons for them to exist?
Peregrine wrote: No, the primary discussion in this thread has been about the shell companies and the general concept of aerial photography, and your "it's only about FLIR" claim is kind of silly. But let's take the opportunity to clarify your position: are you in fact only opposed to aerial photography by FLIR (or any other wall-penetrating technology)? Do you have any objection to warrantless "conventional" photography that only captures what a human eye (with magnifying lenses when necessary) can see? And do you withdraw your objections to the shell companies, now that you've been given reasons for them to exist?
It is a bold statement to claim that the discussion on FLIR is "kind of silly" when it has been what the majority of the discussion has been about.
To help you better understand my position;
1) I oppose FLIR and any other device that allows the inhabitants of a building being observed through otherwise solid structures
2) I oppose photography of individuals on private property without their consent, and when they not obviously in the public view (such as behind a fenced in area), unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. This may not entirely match the legal framework, but you asked for my personal opinion.
3) No. Law enforcement should not be able to use shell corporations to conceal their activities. As the FBI have admitted this is not a secret program. This level of secrecy is a waste of tax payer's money for the minor concerns that you have raised. Modern optics have a sufficiently powerful zoom that their observations need not be over the immediate flight path and can instead stretch for miles.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 1) I oppose FLIR and any other device that allows the inhabitants of a building being observed through otherwise solid structures
Ok, and we agree on that. Walls are intended to provide privacy from the outside world, and looking through them violates a reasonable expectation of privacy that doesn't exist in the case of conventional photography of things happening outside of those walls.
Law enforcement should not be able to use shell corporations to conceal their activities.
So do you also oppose the use of unmarked police cars (including for things like speeding tickets, where no probable cause for a covert investigation exists)?
This level of secrecy is a waste of tax payer's money for the minor concerns that you have raised.
How exactly is it a waste of taxpayer money? A shell company doesn't have to do business/have offices/etc to conceal the ownership of a plane. In fact, a lot of civilian aircraft are owned by corporations for tax reasons. For example, I might pay the paperwork fee to make Peregrine Owns a Plane Inc, and then use the plane exactly as I would if it was registered directly to me. The only place Peregrine Owns a Plane would exist is on a piece of paper in Delaware. The paperwork fees for the FBI to do the same thing are so trivial compared to other examples of government waste that I can't imagine how any reasonable person would bother to care about them.
Peregrine wrote: So do you also oppose the use of unmarked police cars (including for things like speeding tickets, where no probable cause for a covert investigation exists)?
Are they hidden behind dummy corporations?
Do their licence plates still identify them as LEOs?
Are these unmarked police vehicles recording private domiciles?
Enforcing speeding restrictions is in the pubic interest. Is mass surveillance of private residences in the public interest?
Peregrine wrote: How exactly is it a waste of taxpayer money? A shell company doesn't have to do business/have offices/etc to conceal the ownership of a plane. In fact, a lot of civilian aircraft are owned by corporations for tax reasons. For example, I might pay the paperwork fee to make Peregrine Owns a Plane Inc, and then use the plane exactly as I would if it was registered directly to me. The only place Peregrine Owns a Plane would exist is on a piece of paper in Delaware. The paperwork fees for the FBI to do the same thing are so trivial compared to other examples of government waste that I can't imagine how any reasonable person would bother to care about them.
From the OP;
The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions.
Why is it that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "mass surveillance" is going on whenever the government is concerned. You guys just don't understand how hard analysis is and how time consuming it is. If you have a couple of planes flying over a city it would take an army of analysts a decent amount of time to come up with any kind of information based on those aerial photographs. Jesus you guys must think that the entire population of California are nothing but full time analysts, otherwise you have no concept of intelligence activities or the infrastructure required to run even basic operations.
Also, back to FLIR. I am against anyone using FLIR to get around utilizing a Warrant. However, nowhere in the original article does it say that is what they are doing , nor does it say they are using Mass surveillance so can we all stop jumping to conclusions?
So now... conclusions oughtto be jumped. It's incumbent on government officials to do whatever they can to ensure our rights are protected.
1: the NSA Surveillance program you are mentioning is the mass collection of META data and less then 1/100000 of it was ever used for anything besides wasting computer space. And for those not familiar with META Data, it doesn't give any kind of specific data beyond that which was already collected by your phone company it was basically just a different means of storing Data. not as big a deal as everyone (Snowden, certain conspiracy theorists) have tried to make it into.
2: So what? Im not familiar with the rules governing CCW permits, but im assuming its a public record, and if its not does it really infringe upon your rights for the government to know (which they already did at a state level) that you have a CCW?
2: So what? Im not familiar with the rules governing CCW permits, but im assuming its a public record, and if its not does it really infringe upon your rights for the government to know (which they already did at a state level) that you have a CCW?
So now... conclusions oughtto be jumped. It's incumbent on government officials to do whatever they can to ensure our rights are protected.
1: the NSA Surveillance program you are mentioning is the mass collection of META data and less then 1/100000 of it was ever used for anything besides wasting computer space. And for those not familiar with META Data, it doesn't give any kind of specific data beyond that which was already collected by your phone company it was basically just a different means of storing Data. not as big a deal as everyone (Snowden, certain conspiracy theorists) have tried to make it into.
I'm very well versed in Meta Data terminologies... I work in the IT industry after all.
2: So what? Im not familiar with the rules governing CCW permits, but im assuming its a public record, and if its not does it really infringe upon your rights for the government to know (which they already did at a state level) that you have a CCW?
MO officials are prohibited from sending any CCW information outside of the state, including the Federal Government.
Same for Texas. Ghazkuul is proceeding from the assumption that the government should be able to do it if it legally ok. We're working on the presumption that the federal government SHOULDN'T be doing it unless its both legal and absolutely necessary.
Why SHOULD the government know this or that? Thats not its freaking job.
1. Put fluoride in our water.
2. Protect our boarders from lizard people.
3. Keep our roads in working order.
4. Public Schools.
5. Feed/clothe/house the needy.
6. Put bad people in jail.
7. Mind its fething business.
Also the Census, the Post, and Weights and Measures (all noted in the Constitution). Whether the government needs to do more is the classic debate-which is fine. But the #7: should be absolute.
Frazzled wrote: Also the Census, the Post, and Weights and Measures (all noted in the Constitution). Whether the government needs to do more is the classic debate-which is fine. But the #7: should be absolute.
The post is getting gobbled up with email, UPS, and FedEx, for the most part.
Census. Yeah. I want to make sure each state gets their fair representation.
Weights and measures. It's none of their business how fat I am or what I'm packing!
I used to work for a company that offered services using IR cameras. Most of our work was for commercial applications of heat loss calculations and electrical inspection, however on several occasions we were contracted by the DEA to look for drug houses. Depending on the quality of the cameras you can very easily tell if somebody is using it as a grow house or has underground facilities etc. Our cameras could see and measure a heat difference of under 1/10,000th of a degree so they were incredibly accurate (and this is going back over 10 years ago) We could tell you how many people were in a structure, how many individual grow lights there were, or where they'd walked or touched anything within the last 15-20 minutes, in the winter that observation window could be as long as two hours.
Where this becomes invasive is that unlike viewing things from a street level which can have the view blocked by fences, tress or the building there's very little that can obstruct an aerial view. We have a right to privacy within our own home, but these cameras effectively make our walls into glass which is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.
People think that infra red is all blurry and fuzzy mixes of red, oranges and blues like predator, which only happens if you are using a crappy camera. Modern IR stuff looks like a good quality B&W camera, it looks a bit different but it captures just as much detail as a normal lens if not more and can be pretty crystal clear. The police were clearly able to identify people that we filmed, especially if it's run through computer filters that process both the long and short wave radiation and translate it into a more compatible visual image.
Example of a high resolution image:
Much lower resolution image from a helmet cam, and still able to make out plenty of detail:
paulson games wrote: I used to work for a company that offered services using IR cameras. Most of our work was for commercial applications of heat loss calculations and electrical inspection, however on several occasions we were contracted by the DEA to look for drug houses. Depending on the quality of the cameras you can very easily tell if somebody is using it as a grow house or has underground facilities etc. Our cameras could see and measure a heat difference of under 1/10,000th of a degree so they were incredibly accurate (and this is going back over 10 years ago) We could tell you how many people were in a structure, how many individual grow lights there were, or where they'd walked or touched anything within the last 15-20 minutes, in the winter that observation window could be as long as two hours.
Where this becomes invasive is that unlike viewing things from a street level which can have the view blocked by fences, tress or the building there's very little that can obstruct an aerial view. We have a right to privacy within our own home, but these cameras effectively make our walls into glass which is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.
People think that infra red is all blurry and fuzzy mixes of red, oranges and blues like predator, which only happens if you are using a crappy camera. Modern IR stuff looks like a good quality B&W camera, it looks a bit different but it captures just as much detail as a normal lens if not more and can be pretty crystal clear. The police were clearly able to identify people that we filmed, especially if it's run through computer filters that process both the long and short wave radiation and translate it into a more compatible visual image.
Example of a high resolution image:
Much lower resolution image from a helmet cam, and still able to make out plenty of detail:
Both your examples use images that DONT HAVE objects in the way, insert a wall between those images and they become blurry lines of uselessness.
To know anything about cellular phones META data then you would have to be working for a cell phone company and in a very specific part of it, not an IT Company. As far as computer META data is concerned that is bordering on public record since anyone with a basic grasp of computers can find out your META data without having to search very hard. Secondly as far as concealed weapons permits are concerned I fully admit I was wrong, only about 40%ish of states allow those record to be public in some form. And again what right does it violate for the US government to know who has a weapon permit?
The FBI has a secret device to locate criminal suspects, but it would apparently rather let suspects go free than reveal in court any details of the high tech tracker.
The device, called a "Stingray," tricks cell phones into revealing their locations. A judge's court order this week threatens to reveal closely guarded details about how police use Stingrays.
Judge Patrick H. NeMoyer in Buffalo, New York, described a 2012 deal between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff's Office in his court order Tuesday: The FBI instructed the police to drop criminal charges instead of revealing "any information concerning the cell site simulator or its use."
Erie police had long tried to keep that contract secret, but the judge rejected that idea and ordered that details of the Stingrays be made public.
"If that is not an instruction that affects the public, nothing is," NeMoyer wrote.
Erie police had used Stingrays to track down several criminal suspects, a suicidal person and four missing people, including an 87-year-old with dementia, according to the judge's order.
The Erie County Sheriff's Office declined to comment to CNNMoney on Wednesday. Police spokesman Scott Zylka said they're now working with the FBI to appeal the judge's decision and keep the FBI agreement secret.
The FBI did not provide immediate comment.
The American Civil Liberties Union is demanding details about Stingray use under public records laws.
What are Stingrays?
Few people know Stingrays even exist -- or that federal agents and police across the country are increasingly using them to arrest people. It's a small device that mimics a cell phone tower, duping nearby cell phones into connecting to it rather than a real phone company tower.
There's a growing privacy concern because while police use the Stingrays to track down an individual, they can potentially grab text messages and phone call data on thousands of innocent people.
In November, we learned that federal agents regularly fly planes nationwide that spy on Americans' phone calls. We also know police in at least 20 states use Stingrays, according to public records obtained by the ACLU.
But everything else is a mystery because police agencies have non-disclosure agreements with the maker of Stingrays: the Harris Corporation based in Melbourne, Florida. They also have similar hush-hush contracts with the FBI.
There have been several examples of prosecutors dropping charges to keep quiet about Stingrays. Late last year, Tallahassee police gave a sweet plea deal to a pot dealer who robbed someone with a BB gun. A felony charge with a four-year prison sentence became a misdemeanor with six-months' probation because his defense attorney discovered police used a Stingray to locate him.
Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the pro-privacy Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Tuesday's court order was the first time that revealed a nationwide police tactic to maintain secrecy at all costs.
"We've long suspected that's the policy, but now we know," he said. "It's crazy on a billion legal levels."
The lead ACLU attorney on this case, Mariko Hirose, described Stingrays as military grade equipment that has no place being used on unsuspecting American citizens. She also said that the FBI's tactic to stay quiet about Stingrays makes little sense. Erie County spent more than $350,000 to buy two Stingray devices and related training and equipment.
"Why are municipalities spending so much money when they might have to drop the charges in the name of secrecy?" she asked.
3) Court Orders to Google, Apple, MS, Verizon etc, to hand over customer data
4) section 215, allows the FBI to ask the FISA court to compel the sharing of books, business documents, tax records, library check-out lists – actually, “any tangible thing” – as part of a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. The required material can include purely domestic records.
5) The revelations in 2005 that the government “monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants.” The program involves actually listening in on phone calls and reading emails without seeking permission from the FISA Court
6) Echelon & PRISM programs
The FBI has a secret device to locate criminal suspects, but it would apparently rather let suspects go free than reveal in court any details of the high tech tracker. The device, called a "Stingray," tricks cell phones into revealing their locations. A judge's court order this week threatens to reveal closely guarded details about how police use Stingrays. Judge Patrick H. NeMoyer in Buffalo, New York, described a 2012 deal between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff's Office in his court order Tuesday: The FBI instructed the police to drop criminal charges instead of revealing "any information concerning the cell site simulator or its use." Erie police had long tried to keep that contract secret, but the judge rejected that idea and ordered that details of the Stingrays be made public. "If that is not an instruction that affects the public, nothing is," NeMoyer wrote. Erie police had used Stingrays to track down several criminal suspects, a suicidal person and four missing people, including an 87-year-old with dementia, according to the judge's order. The Erie County Sheriff's Office declined to comment to CNNMoney on Wednesday. Police spokesman Scott Zylka said they're now working with the FBI to appeal the judge's decision and keep the FBI agreement secret. The FBI did not provide immediate comment. The American Civil Liberties Union is demanding details about Stingray use under public records laws. What are Stingrays? Few people know Stingrays even exist -- or that federal agents and police across the country are increasingly using them to arrest people. It's a small device that mimics a cell phone tower, duping nearby cell phones into connecting to it rather than a real phone company tower. There's a growing privacy concern because while police use the Stingrays to track down an individual, they can potentially grab text messages and phone call data on thousands of innocent people. In November, we learned that federal agents regularly fly planes nationwide that spy on Americans' phone calls. We also know police in at least 20 states use Stingrays, according to public records obtained by the ACLU. But everything else is a mystery because police agencies have non-disclosure agreements with the maker of Stingrays: the Harris Corporation based in Melbourne, Florida. They also have similar hush-hush contracts with the FBI. There have been several examples of prosecutors dropping charges to keep quiet about Stingrays. Late last year, Tallahassee police gave a sweet plea deal to a pot dealer who robbed someone with a BB gun. A felony charge with a four-year prison sentence became a misdemeanor with six-months' probation because his defense attorney discovered police used a Stingray to locate him. Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the pro-privacy Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Tuesday's court order was the first time that revealed a nationwide police tactic to maintain secrecy at all costs. "We've long suspected that's the policy, but now we know," he said. "It's crazy on a billion legal levels." The lead ACLU attorney on this case, Mariko Hirose, described Stingrays as military grade equipment that has no place being used on unsuspecting American citizens. She also said that the FBI's tactic to stay quiet about Stingrays makes little sense. Erie County spent more than $350,000 to buy two Stingray devices and related training and equipment. "Why are municipalities spending so much money when they might have to drop the charges in the name of secrecy?" she asked.
]3) Court Orders to Google, Apple, MS, Verizon etc, to hand over customer data 4) section 215, allows the FBI to ask the FISA court to compel the sharing of books, business documents, tax records, library check-out lists – actually, “any tangible thing” – as part of a foreign intelligence or international terrorism investigation. The required material can include purely domestic records. 5) The revelations in 2005 that the government “monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants.” The program involves actually listening in on phone calls and reading emails without seeking permission from the FISA Court 6) Echelon & PRISM programs
1: Already went over that 2: Stingrays can only be used with a court order, much like a Warrant. I have used stingrays and we were directly forbidden from utilizing them while in the US Because of FISA concerns. 3: key words there are "Court Ordered" meaning that the US judicial branch has ruled it to be "Constitutional". And you make it seem as if they do this all the time for everyone, they only do this when it involves an investigation. 4: Again, "FISA COURT" meaning that a court goes over the decision and eventually utilizes a Warrant. 5: Show me Proof of this one because I doubt it exists. 6: Echelon and Prism both work under the same rules set forth by FISA/EO12333 so why are you worried? have you been talking to Bin Laden's cousins recently?
I feel like I have much to say on this subject. But I could never put in in one post.
I recommend three books to everyone who finds this subject interesting.
The church committee reports. Boring, but from which the FISA was ultimately born.
The Puzzel Palace by James Bamford, Boring, and may constitue a security violation in some lines of work. Ghazkuul, this book blows your #3 right out of the water.
Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-1970 by Christopher Pyle. I love the preface to this book, where he talks about a copy of the constitution that was on his units shelf as a captain in US Army intelligence.
Also a friendly reminder that the 4th amendment protections extend to persons, houses, papers, and effects. Your rights do not end when you step outside your house.
Insurgency Walker wrote: I feel like I have much to say on this subject. But I could never put in in one post.
I recommend three books to everyone who finds this subject interesting.
The church committee reports. Boring, but from which the FISA was ultimately born.
The Puzzel Palace by James Bamford, Boring, and may constitue a security violation in some lines of work. Ghazkuul, this book blows your #3 right out of the water.
Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-1970 by Christopher Pyle. I love the preface to this book, where he talks about a copy of the constitution that was on his units shelf as a captain in US Army intelligence.
Also a friendly reminder that the 4th amendment protections extend to persons, houses, papers, and effects. Your rights do not end when you step outside your house.
The Puzzle Palace describes the violations that led to the Church affair (as far as eavesdropping is concerned, it has other stuff including Iran/contra). they don't really talk about the kind of eaves dropping referenced in the earlier post I mentioned in my #3. Again I would ask for evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: *SIDE NOTE: Nobody is denying that the 4th amendment extends beyond your domicile. However, if you are out in public it is perfectly legal for people to take your picture. It is further legal to search your person if you are acting suspicious. 4th doesn't protect you from "probable Cause"
1: Already went over that
2: Stingrays can only be used with a court order, much like a Warrant. I have used stingrays and we were directly forbidden from utilizing them while in the US Because of FISA concerns.
3: key words there are "Court Ordered" meaning that the US judicial branch has ruled it to be "Constitutional". And you make it seem as if they do this all the time for everyone, they only do this when it involves an investigation.
4: Again, "FISA COURT" meaning that a court goes over the decision and eventually utilizes a Warrant.
5: Show me Proof of this one because I doubt it exists.
6: Echelon and Prism both work under the same rules set forth by FISA/EO12333 so why are you worried? have you been talking to Bin Laden's cousins recently?
You may not have used Stingrays in the US, but as that article clearly shows the FBI has. And rather than disclose what they have obtained and how in a court of law they drop the case. So the device has been used to collect evidence that they refuse to use, and drop charges. But they keep the records. That speaks volumes, and little of it is positive. LEOs in some jurisdictions have been caught using these devices and then manufacturing an evidence chain to disguise the origins of their evidence.
You asked about mass surveillance and wondered why people think the government are continually conducting it. I've given you numerous examples of documented cases where mass surveillance, both court ordered and extra judicially, has been carried out. Your retorts to date have been of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" variety (" If you don't understand that then you are way to concerned with whatever deep dark secrets you are doing in your home", "have you been talking to Bin Laden's cousins recently?")
Insurgency Walker wrote: I feel like I have much to say on this subject. But I could never put in in one post.
I recommend three books to everyone who finds this subject interesting.
The church committee reports. Boring, but from which the FISA was ultimately born.
The Puzzel Palace by James Bamford, Boring, and may constitue a security violation in some lines of work. Ghazkuul, this book blows your #3 right out of the water.
Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-1970 by Christopher Pyle. I love the preface to this book, where he talks about a copy of the constitution that was on his units shelf as a captain in US Army intelligence.
Also a friendly reminder that the 4th amendment protections extend to persons, houses, papers, and effects. Your rights do not end when you step outside your house.
The Puzzle Palace describes the violations that led to the Church affair (as far as eavesdropping is concerned, it has other stuff including Iran/contra). they don't really talk about the kind of eaves dropping referenced in the earlier post I mentioned in my #3. Again I would ask for evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: *SIDE NOTE: Nobody is denying that the 4th amendment extends beyond your domicile. However, if you are out in public it is perfectly legal for people to take your picture. It is further legal to search your person if you are acting suspicious. 4th doesn't protect you from "probable Cause"
#3 is about mass collection of a given communication source. The government created back door agreements, (and in one case infiltrated and stole without the company's concent) All telegraphic communications that passed within and through the U.S. All of it, and this was before computers, so it all had to be manually processed and reviewed. All before WWII. massive collection for its time. MASSIVE.
1: Already went over that
2: Stingrays can only be used with a court order, much like a Warrant. I have used stingrays and we were directly forbidden from utilizing them while in the US Because of FISA concerns.
3: key words there are "Court Ordered" meaning that the US judicial branch has ruled it to be "Constitutional". And you make it seem as if they do this all the time for everyone, they only do this when it involves an investigation.
4: Again, "FISA COURT" meaning that a court goes over the decision and eventually utilizes a Warrant.
5: Show me Proof of this one because I doubt it exists.
6: Echelon and Prism both work under the same rules set forth by FISA/EO12333 so why are you worried? have you been talking to Bin Laden's cousins recently?
You may not have used Stingrays in the US, but as that article clearly shows the FBI has. And rather than disclose what they have obtained and how in a court of law they drop the case. So the device has been used to collect evidence that they refuse to use, and drop charges. But they keep the records. That speaks volumes, and little of it is positive. LEOs in some jurisdictions have been caught using these devices and then manufacturing an evidence chain to disguise the origins of their evidence.
You asked about mass surveillance and wondered why people think the government are continually conducting it. I've given you numerous examples of documented cases where mass surveillance, both court ordered and extra judicially, has been carried out. Your retorts to date have been of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" variety (" If you don't understand that then you are way to concerned with whatever deep dark secrets you are doing in your home", "have you been talking to Bin Laden's cousins recently?")
actually when using a Stingray in the US you have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges. Also Stingrays and other collection means are allowed to be used WITHOUT a court order if in doing so you are protecting a persons life, such as the man who had dementia and got lost.
What you have done is give a bunch of examples of times when the US government COULD have used mass surveillance but either didn't or used it to collect meta data which isn't surveillance since way less then 1/2 of a % of it is ever even looked at. So in the end what you have done is nothing but speculate and come up with conspiracy theories backed up by other conspiracy theories; with the exception of the "Court Ordered" surveillance...which isn't mass surveillance but rather against a specific target or handful of targets.
Insurgency Walker wrote: I feel like I have much to say on this subject. But I could never put in in one post.
I recommend three books to everyone who finds this subject interesting.
The church committee reports. Boring, but from which the FISA was ultimately born.
The Puzzel Palace by James Bamford, Boring, and may constitue a security violation in some lines of work. Ghazkuul, this book blows your #3 right out of the water.
Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics, 1967-1970 by Christopher Pyle. I love the preface to this book, where he talks about a copy of the constitution that was on his units shelf as a captain in US Army intelligence.
Also a friendly reminder that the 4th amendment protections extend to persons, houses, papers, and effects. Your rights do not end when you step outside your house.
The Puzzle Palace describes the violations that led to the Church affair (as far as eavesdropping is concerned, it has other stuff including Iran/contra). they don't really talk about the kind of eaves dropping referenced in the earlier post I mentioned in my #3. Again I would ask for evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: *SIDE NOTE: Nobody is denying that the 4th amendment extends beyond your domicile. However, if you are out in public it is perfectly legal for people to take your picture. It is further legal to search your person if you are acting suspicious. 4th doesn't protect you from "probable Cause"
#3 is about mass collection of a given communication source. The government created back door agreements, (and in one case infiltrated and stole without the company's concent) All telegraphic communications that passed within and through the U.S. All of it, and this was before computers, so it all had to be manually processed and reviewed. All before WWII. massive collection for its time. MASSIVE.
Key word is "Agreements" the scope with which the governments of the world are having to contend with private industries is starting to tell. Private companies have far better encryption/security then most countries and in order to be able to pull information utilizing warrants these back doors had to be created. But yet again, can only be used utilizing Warrants, otherwise it violates FISA/EO12333.
Now your leaving out the effects of the patriot, and now freedom act which sets up FISA with the ability to provide blanket warrens without probable cause. Also, just because it is an agreement does not mean that it is legal, or constitutional.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Now your leaving out the effects of the patriot, and now freedom act which sets up FISA with the ability to provide blanket warrens without probable cause. Also, just because it is an agreement does not mean that it is legal, or constitutional.
Freedom Act does not set up FISA "With the ability to provide blanket warrants without probably cause" reread the document, all requests still have to go through the court procedure and gain a warrant. Just recently we had a beautifully ridiculous US congressmen go on a 10+ hour filibuster about how these courts are unconstitutional...apparently he doesn't understand how warrants work
Automatically Appended Next Post: And nor does it make them illegal or unconstitutional.
Well some of FISAs own judges disagree with you. They don't publish much of the documents they create, but you can find the redacted 2011 memorandum from the FISA courts opion on NSA collection of Internet data.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That's not about the warrants but the courts understanding of how the NSA program operated.
and that is their rights as judges, and if they feel that strongly enough they are allowed to not award warrants based on the constitutionality of the acts regardless of what the Patriot act/freedom act say.
Back to number 3.
Let me spell it out.
As per the 2011 memorandum.
FISA catches NSA operating outside of FISA guild lines.
FISA asks for clarification, administration stalls, NSA ultimately says 'yes we have, yes we will' ( no not a direct quote )
FISA says whoa! All you NSA, FBI, CIA monkeys need to get with the program, which we need to update by the way,because your behavior is partly unconstitutional.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Back to number 3.
Let me spell it out.
As per the 2011 memorandum.
FISA catches NSA operating outside of FISA guild lines.
FISA asks for clarification, administration stalls, NSA ultimately says 'yes we have, yes we will' ( no not a direct quote )
FISA says whoa! All you NSA, FBI, CIA monkeys need to get with the program, which we need to update by the way,because your behavior is partly unconstitutional.
So translation, the NSA did nothing wrong in regards to FISA. Huge debate ensues and they change the wording in the freedom/patriot act which directly effects FISA and now those operations/programs previously being performed (META DATA) have stopped. Again, not a big deal, meta data is useless and since apparently nobody in the world even knows what META data is everyone just assumes its their GPS Coordinates down to a 10 digit grid. FFS you are blowing this way out of proportion much like the media did and congressmen/woman running for re-election.
Both your examples use images that DONT HAVE objects in the way, insert a wall between those images and they become blurry lines of uselessness.
It was to show that you can have extremely detailed FLIR images since earlier statements were being made that *everything* is blurry and useless. Those photos were taken using short wave IR which is most commonly used as it's fast and can be used real time. The long wave radiation is what you can use to see through some objects with, it's not perfect and isn't suited all that well for applications that need to be mobile, like night vision googles. To get a really good long wave result it needs to be treated much like a standard camera using long exposure that could take several minutes to hours depending on how detailed you want to get. What you are trying to see through also impacts things, surprisingly glass tends to act like a mirror it can can be harder to see through than a solid wall depending on the aperture you are using. Long exposures are not very good for precise readings taken real time, but if you have the time you can find out what objects are in a room, find hidden areas and a lot about the interiors of a building without needing to set foot in them, which is a huge advantage when trying to figure out what's inside or when planning a for a raid etc. Long wave done in a small plane doing a quick fly by may not produce amazing results but on something much slower moving and stable like a military drone it could be really effective.
Its a huge asset in spotting activity that would be concealed to the naked eye or even standard cameras, if it wasn't so effective they wouldn't be using it as much as they do. One of the cool things I learned on the job was that different species of plants keep different core temps at night. Growers like to mix pot plants in with corn or other crops to hide them from foot view or even aircraft flying overhead. It can be hard to spot if it's spaced out correctly, but when viewed from IR they literally glow at night making it very easy to identify a field that is also serving as a grow farm.
We also spotted all sorts of buildings concealed underground that would never have been visible to regular observation.
Insurgency Walker wrote: Back to number 3.
Let me spell it out.
As per the 2011 memorandum.
FISA catches NSA operating outside of FISA guild lines.
FISA asks for clarification, administration stalls, NSA ultimately says 'yes we have, yes we will' ( no not a direct quote )
FISA says whoa! All you NSA, FBI, CIA monkeys need to get with the program, which we need to update by the way,because your behavior is partly unconstitutional.
So translation, the NSA did nothing wrong in regards to FISA. Huge debate ensues and they change the wording in the freedom/patriot act which directly effects FISA and now those operations/programs previously being performed (META DATA) have stopped. Again, not a big deal, meta data is useless and since apparently nobody in the world even knows what META data is everyone just assumes its their GPS Coordinates down to a 10 digit grid. FFS you are blowing this way out of proportion much like the media did and congressmen/woman running for re-election.
No in translation they did. This is not just about meta data. The conversation in the media has been about meta data. But the issue is beyond meta data.
My guess is that you work within some form of law enforcement Ghazkuul?
Ghazkuul wrote: actually when using a Stingray in the US you have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges.
So are you saying that the FBI used stingrays without court authorization?
Ghazkuul wrote: actually when using a Stingray in the US you have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges.
So are you saying that the FBI used stingrays without court authorization?
Hold on a second while I spin everything for you so you don't have to work that hard.....jesus Christ
Anyway. You can use a stingray for whatever you would like. hell you can order one yourself from the company if you really wanted to. However, if you used evidence or based an arrest on a stingray or other SIGINT then you NEED a warrant, otherwise the evidence is inadmissible as I've gone over several times already.
And no, I don't and nor have I ever worked for a Law enforcement agency, be it local, state or federal. I have worked in the USMC and I have worked in SIGINT and I DO know what im talking about as I have experience with a lot of this, where as most of you are reading articles and half truths with no experience at all. That isn't a statement designed to antagonize I am however pointing out that those who do have experience in these fields know that nothing is wrong with the rules in place. Its just liberal media and government scare tactics that make this into the issue it is.
I've watched educated people state that the government shouldn't be able to listen to our phone conversations, when asked for sources about this happening they stated the "Bourne" series from Ludlum, at that point I and walked away.
Ghazkuul wrote: Hold on a second while I spin everything for you so you don't have to work that hard.....jesus Christ
Anyway. You can use a stingray for whatever you would like. hell you can order one yourself from the company if you really wanted to. However, if you used evidence or based an arrest on a stingray or other SIGINT then you NEED a warrant, otherwise the evidence is inadmissible as I've gone over several times already.
No one is disputing that a warrant is needed. The problem is that this device has been used, people have been arrested, charged with a crime, and then when it surfaces that a stingray was used the case gets dropped.
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance
Ghazkuul wrote: And no, I don't and nor have I ever worked for a Law enforcement agency, be it local, state or federal. I have worked in the USMC and I have worked in SIGINT and I DO know what im talking about as I have experience with a lot of this, where as most of you are reading articles and half truths with no experience at all. That isn't a statement designed to antagonize I am however pointing out that those who do have experience in these fields know that nothing is wrong with the rules in place. Its just liberal media and government scare tactics that make this into the issue it is.
You have experience of it within a military setting in what I presume to be an active war zone. That is very different to the factual and legal environment the FBI must operate under within the United States
Ghazkuul wrote: I've watched educated people state that the government shouldn't be able to listen to our phone conversations, when asked for sources about this happening they stated the "Bourne" series from Ludlum, at that point I and walked away.
I don't recall this being a line of argument advanced in this thread so it isn't particularly germane to the present discussion
Ghazkuul wrote: Hold on a second while I spin everything for you so you don't have to work that hard.....jesus Christ
Anyway. You can use a stingray for whatever you would like. hell you can order one yourself from the company if you really wanted to. However, if you used evidence or based an arrest on a stingray or other SIGINT then you NEED a warrant, otherwise the evidence is inadmissible as I've gone over several times already.
No one is disputing that a warrant is needed. The problem is that this device has been used, people have been arrested, charged with a crime, and then when it surfaces that a stingray was used the case gets dropped.
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance
Ghazkuul wrote: And no, I don't and nor have I ever worked for a Law enforcement agency, be it local, state or federal. I have worked in the USMC and I have worked in SIGINT and I DO know what im talking about as I have experience with a lot of this, where as most of you are reading articles and half truths with no experience at all. That isn't a statement designed to antagonize I am however pointing out that those who do have experience in these fields know that nothing is wrong with the rules in place. Its just liberal media and government scare tactics that make this into the issue it is.
You have experience of it within a military setting in what I presume to be an active war zone. That is very different to the factual and legal environment the FBI must operate under within the United States
Ghazkuul wrote: I've watched educated people state that the government shouldn't be able to listen to our phone conversations, when asked for sources about this happening they stated the "Bourne" series from Ludlum, at that point I and walked away.
I don't recall this being a line of argument advanced in this thread so it isn't particularly germane to the present discussion
"
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance" that is an assumption based on the fact that the FBI didn't press charges. Regardless of whether your assumption is right or not it doesn't change the fact that no ill consequences came to the person targeted due to the use of a Stingray or other devices.
The only difference between the two, at least in regards to the rules, is that it was a lot more uncommon for us to discover an American where we were at, but as far as that the rules were exactly the same regarding the use of special collection means against US persons.
and lastly we are WAY off topic. so lets just let it rest on that and get back to the actual FBI/airplane part of this thread.
Ghazkuul wrote: Hold on a second while I spin everything for you so you don't have to work that hard.....jesus Christ
Anyway. You can use a stingray for whatever you would like. hell you can order one yourself from the company if you really wanted to. However, if you used evidence or based an arrest on a stingray or other SIGINT then you NEED a warrant, otherwise the evidence is inadmissible as I've gone over several times already.
No one is disputing that a warrant is needed. The problem is that this device has been used, people have been arrested, charged with a crime, and then when it surfaces that a stingray was used the case gets dropped.
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance
Ghazkuul wrote: And no, I don't and nor have I ever worked for a Law enforcement agency, be it local, state or federal. I have worked in the USMC and I have worked in SIGINT and I DO know what im talking about as I have experience with a lot of this, where as most of you are reading articles and half truths with no experience at all. That isn't a statement designed to antagonize I am however pointing out that those who do have experience in these fields know that nothing is wrong with the rules in place. Its just liberal media and government scare tactics that make this into the issue it is.
You have experience of it within a military setting in what I presume to be an active war zone. That is very different to the factual and legal environment the FBI must operate under within the United States
Ghazkuul wrote: I've watched educated people state that the government shouldn't be able to listen to our phone conversations, when asked for sources about this happening they stated the "Bourne" series from Ludlum, at that point I and walked away.
I don't recall this being a line of argument advanced in this thread so it isn't particularly germane to the present discussion
"
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance" that is an assumption based on the fact that the FBI didn't press charges. Regardless of whether your assumption is right or not it doesn't change the fact that no ill consequences came to the person targeted due to the use of a Stingray or other devices.
The only difference between the two, at least in regards to the rules, is that it was a lot more uncommon for us to discover an American where we were at, but as far as that the rules were exactly the same regarding the use of special collection means against US persons.
and lastly we are WAY off topic. so lets just let it rest on that and get back to the actual FBI/airplane part of this thread.
Maybe not that far off topic. We have no idea what sort of equipment is being deployed in these aircraft.
The question is, could this cause a chilling effect on communities where these flights are taking place? The church committee decided that collection was fine as long as it did not create a chilling effect on people's rights. We are coming up on an election year. Could some of the flights be used to collect information on political activists? Might someone belive that they were?
Is that taking the thread too far off topic?
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!
And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but
I never speculated on the aircrafts capabilities. I did ask in a trolling way, about the impacts of the aircrafts activities. Questions that should be asked in a free and open society whenever the government pulls the secret squirrel card when something makes into the mainstream media. (For the record, my favorite spill was Pres. Regan blabbing about stealth aircraft and the crazy concept art that popped up in the news almost immediately.) As far as research goes, these aircraft have been on my radar Since they were flying tight racetrack patterns over Quincey Mass after the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. I don't think they were attributed to the FBI at that time.
I can see how working for the DoD can lead you to place your trust in the many alphabet soup agency's.
Duty, Honor, Country, and an oath do defend the Constitution. Powerful stuff.
An oath not all who work within the various alphabet soups take.
Anyway. Back to President Regan "trust, but verify".
Still,
Does anyone notice just how little resolution there are in these images? Do we have the types of camera's that can see through walls and things like that? Yes.
Does the FBI have the budget to be mounting those things on Drones and taking a peak at your diary? No. Especially when the DoD doesn't have that type of budget.
Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.
What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.
As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".
The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.
My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.
Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.
whembly wrote: Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.
What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.
As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".
The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.
My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.
Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.
If you are honestly concerned then you should read FISA and EO12333
I believe FISA Title XI Deals with reporting, the gist of it is that the AG has to file a report twice a year with 3 different oversight committees that cover both congressional and judicial review. The Oversight is present.
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!
And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but
I never speculated on the aircrafts capabilities. I did ask in a trolling way, about the impacts of the aircrafts activities. Questions that should be asked in a free and open society whenever the government pulls the secret squirrel card when something makes into the mainstream media. (For the record, my favorite spill was Pres. Regan blabbing about stealth aircraft and the crazy concept art that popped up in the news almost immediately.) As far as research goes, these aircraft have been on my radar Since they were flying tight racetrack patterns over Quincey Mass after the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. I don't think they were attributed to the FBI at that time.
I can see how working for the DoD can lead you to place your trust in the many alphabet soup agency's.
Duty, Honor, Country, and an oath do defend the Constitution. Powerful stuff.
An oath not all who work within the various alphabet soups take.
Anyway. Back to President Regan "trust, but verify".
Still,
I have as much trust in the "Alphabet soup" agencies as I do in the average person. The biggest difference is that I know the rules and laws that those organizations HAVE to follow. I also know how easy it is to stop someone who is operating outside the letter of the law. IN most intelligence units an auditor is in place over EVERYTHING and if you go outside your jurisdiction you quickly get put in place and more then likely if you do it on purpose you can go find a new job.
Whether you choose to read the laws and rules that govern these agencies is up to you.
whembly wrote: Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.
What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.
As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".
The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.
My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.
Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.
If you are honestly concerned then you should read FISA and EO12333
I believe FISA Title XI Deals with reporting, the gist of it is that the AG has to file a report twice a year with 3 different oversight committees that cover both congressional and judicial review. The Oversight is present.
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.
djones520 wrote: Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.
WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!
And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but
I never speculated on the aircrafts capabilities. I did ask in a trolling way, about the impacts of the aircrafts activities. Questions that should be asked in a free and open society whenever the government pulls the secret squirrel card when something makes into the mainstream media. (For the record, my favorite spill was Pres. Regan blabbing about stealth aircraft and the crazy concept art that popped up in the news almost immediately.) As far as research goes, these aircraft have been on my radar Since they were flying tight racetrack patterns over Quincey Mass after the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. I don't think they were attributed to the FBI at that time.
I can see how working for the DoD can lead you to place your trust in the many alphabet soup agency's.
Duty, Honor, Country, and an oath do defend the Constitution. Powerful stuff.
An oath not all who work within the various alphabet soups take.
Anyway. Back to President Regan "trust, but verify".
Still,
I have as much trust in the "Alphabet soup" agencies as I do in the average person. The biggest difference is that I know the rules and laws that those organizations HAVE to follow. I also know how easy it is to stop someone who is operating outside the letter of the law. IN most intelligence units an auditor is in place over EVERYTHING and if you go outside your jurisdiction you quickly get put in place and more then likely if you do it on purpose you can go find a new job.
Whether you choose to read the laws and rules that govern these agencies is up to you.
I have read the laws.
I know how they have been abused in the past.
I'm confident they are being abused and will continue to be abused, that is human nature.
Look at the IRS scandals. In the 1990's the IRS gets caught as a political tool of harassment. The tax audit process was used to target people who were polital adversaries of the administration. Fast forward today the IRS, despite a whole new set of regulations, escalated from simple procedural harassment to blocking targeted political groups from fair competition with groups favorable to the administration. Oh, true, don't have proof cause a computer broke and the emails lost. Lots of accountability there.
I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.
whembly wrote: Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.
What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.
As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".
The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.
My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.
Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.
If you are honestly concerned then you should read FISA and EO12333
I believe FISA Title XI Deals with reporting, the gist of it is that the AG has to file a report twice a year with 3 different oversight committees that cover both congressional and judicial review. The Oversight is present.
Uh huh... this is the same administration that has a memo describing circumstances that it's legal to drone an American abroad.
So, forgive me for having a healthy dose skepticism when official claims it's all good.
Wyzilla wrote: I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.
If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.
Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.
Wyzilla wrote: I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.
If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.
Simply taking pictures. Here is a story for you. FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal. Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal. Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now! Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer. Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal. Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found. Our tax dollars at work.
8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014
If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.
Wyzilla wrote: I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.
If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.
Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.
8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014
If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.
Wyzilla wrote: I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.
If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.
Simply taking pictures. Here is a story for you. FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal. Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal. Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now! Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer. Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal. Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found. Our tax dollars at work.
8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014
If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.
Ok, explain how a stingray works.
Sorry but I literally don't know what is publicly released about the device. Harris.com that's the website for the company that makes them, if your so inclined you may look up the specs there.
Wyzilla wrote: I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.
If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.
Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.
8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014
If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.
Ok, explain how a stingray works.
Sorry but I literally don't know what is publicly released about the device. Harris.com that's the website for the company that makes them, if your so inclined you may look up the specs there.
Not much info on exact stats for that program. Actually not at all found by a search of their site.
Bet that search got me on a list.....
Marketing list. I used to get flyers from surplus arms companies for guns.... you know, mortars and howitzers, other artillery. Not small arms. They do have a high speed low drag catalog of communication equipment and services.
Not useful so far.
and walked away.
