Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:17:20
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Flying over is purposely aiming equipment.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:20:18
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)
Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!
|
Yup.
Why did you think the FBI wanted this program remain a secret?
|
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:26:14
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
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 come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:30:07
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Ghazkuul wrote:
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?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:32:15
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
Frazzled wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
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 come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:34:42
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Ghazkuul wrote: Frazzled wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
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?
Why the shell companies?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:46:05
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
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?
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:52:13
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Simply in the air awaiting tasking? What are they flying CAP?
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 17:57:53
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
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
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 18:02:09
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
So they say.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 18:07:48
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
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
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 18:46:58
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
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
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 18:49:40
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
Ghazkuul wrote:
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.
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 18:49:49
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
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?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 19:04:09
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 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.
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 19:37:11
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/04 19:40:22
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 19:45:50
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Ghazkuul wrote:
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;
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt4frag4_user.html
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
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
http://www.ojotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/The_Law_and_Video_Surveillance.pdf
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 19:59:04
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/04 19:59:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 20:24:15
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 20:49:30
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote: 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.
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 20:51:35
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
The supreme court disagrees with you about aerial photography requiring a warrant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
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 message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/04 20:56:23
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 21:27:02
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
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.
Peregrine wrote:The supreme court disagrees with you about aerial photography requiring a warrant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
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"
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 21:35:23
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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. Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/04 21:39:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 21:41:42
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 21:48:49
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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?
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 21:53:44
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Fate-Controlling Farseer
|
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.
|
Full Frontal Nerdity |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 22:03:38
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Peregrine wrote:
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 22:10:11
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/04 22:10:51
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 22:28:29
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/06/04 22:35:45
Subject: FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/04 22:36:44
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
|