FBI admits to aerial surveillance overflights without court approval

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**Ghazkuul**

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?

**whembly**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Why is it that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "mass surveillance" is going on whenever the government is concerned.

I'll give you two easy answers:

1) At Federal Level: The NSA Survelliance program.

2) At my State (Missouri): Missouri Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders

So now... conclusions ought to be jumped. It's incumbent on government officials to do whatever they can to ensure our rights are protected.

**Ghazkuul**

whembly wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Why is it that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "mass surveillance" is going on whenever the government is concerned.

I'll give you two easy answers:

1) At Federal Level: The NSA Survelliance program.

2) At my State (Missouri): Missouri Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders

So now... conclusions ought to 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?

**Frazzled**

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?

You assume wrong and on both counts.

**whembly**

Ghazkuul wrote:
whembly wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Why is it that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "mass surveillance" is going on whenever the government is concerned.

I'll give you two easy answers:

1) At Federal Level: The NSA Survelliance program.

2) At my State (Missouri): Missouri Highway Patrol gave federal government list of CCW permit holders

So now... conclusions ought to 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.

You are incorrect. Meta Data is unambiguously sensitive.

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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**kronk**

The government's 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.

**Frazzled**

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.

**kronk**

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!

**paulson games**

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:

**Ghazkuul**

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?

**Dreadclaw69**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Why is it that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "mass surveillance" is going on whenever the government is concerned.

1) NSA metadata collection
2) Stingray http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/18/technology/security/police-stingray-phone-tracker/

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

**Ghazkuul**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Why is it that everyone jumps to the conclusion that "mass surveillance" is going on whenever the government is concerned.

1) NSA metadata collection

Spoiler:

2) Stingray http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/18/technology/security/police-stingray-phone-tracker/

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?

**Insurgency Walker**

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.

**Ghazkuul**

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"

**Dreadclaw69**

Ghazkuul wrote:

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**

Ghazkuul wrote:
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.

**Ghazkuul**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Insurgency Walker wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
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.

**Insurgency Walker**

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.

**Ghazkuul**

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.

**Insurgency Walker**

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.

**Ghazkuul**

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.

**Insurgency Walker**

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.

**Ghazkuul**

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.

**paulson games**

Ghazkuul wrote:

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**

Ghazkuul wrote:
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?

**Dreadclaw69**

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**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

**Dreadclaw69**

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