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 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Hold on a second while I spin everything for you so you don't have to work that hard.....jesus Christ


Anyway. You can use a stingray for whatever you would like. hell you can order one yourself from the company if you really wanted to. However, if you used evidence or based an arrest on a stingray or other SIGINT then you NEED a warrant, otherwise the evidence is inadmissible as I've gone over several times already.

No one is disputing that a warrant is needed. The problem is that this device has been used, people have been arrested, charged with a crime, and then when it surfaces that a stingray was used the case gets dropped.

I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And no, I don't and nor have I ever worked for a Law enforcement agency, be it local, state or federal. I have worked in the USMC and I have worked in SIGINT and I DO know what im talking about as I have experience with a lot of this, where as most of you are reading articles and half truths with no experience at all. That isn't a statement designed to antagonize I am however pointing out that those who do have experience in these fields know that nothing is wrong with the rules in place. Its just liberal media and government scare tactics that make this into the issue it is.

You have experience of it within a military setting in what I presume to be an active war zone. That is very different to the factual and legal environment the FBI must operate under within the United States

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I've watched educated people state that the government shouldn't be able to listen to our phone conversations, when asked for sources about this happening they stated the "Bourne" series from Ludlum, at that point I and walked away.

I don't recall this being a line of argument advanced in this thread so it isn't particularly germane to the present discussion

"
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance" that is an assumption based on the fact that the FBI didn't press charges. Regardless of whether your assumption is right or not it doesn't change the fact that no ill consequences came to the person targeted due to the use of a Stingray or other devices.

The only difference between the two, at least in regards to the rules, is that it was a lot more uncommon for us to discover an American where we were at, but as far as that the rules were exactly the same regarding the use of special collection means against US persons.

and lastly we are WAY off topic. so lets just let it rest on that and get back to the actual FBI/airplane part of this thread.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Hold on a second while I spin everything for you so you don't have to work that hard.....jesus Christ


Anyway. You can use a stingray for whatever you would like. hell you can order one yourself from the company if you really wanted to. However, if you used evidence or based an arrest on a stingray or other SIGINT then you NEED a warrant, otherwise the evidence is inadmissible as I've gone over several times already.

No one is disputing that a warrant is needed. The problem is that this device has been used, people have been arrested, charged with a crime, and then when it surfaces that a stingray was used the case gets dropped.

I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And no, I don't and nor have I ever worked for a Law enforcement agency, be it local, state or federal. I have worked in the USMC and I have worked in SIGINT and I DO know what im talking about as I have experience with a lot of this, where as most of you are reading articles and half truths with no experience at all. That isn't a statement designed to antagonize I am however pointing out that those who do have experience in these fields know that nothing is wrong with the rules in place. Its just liberal media and government scare tactics that make this into the issue it is.

You have experience of it within a military setting in what I presume to be an active war zone. That is very different to the factual and legal environment the FBI must operate under within the United States

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I've watched educated people state that the government shouldn't be able to listen to our phone conversations, when asked for sources about this happening they stated the "Bourne" series from Ludlum, at that point I and walked away.

I don't recall this being a line of argument advanced in this thread so it isn't particularly germane to the present discussion

"
I pointed this out. Your reply was "have to have a court order, if you do not then it is inadmissible in court and if that was the reason for the arrest the person would be let go free of charges". So the clear inference is that the FBI have used this device in the past extra judicially, which is the crux of this thread - extra judicial surveillance" that is an assumption based on the fact that the FBI didn't press charges. Regardless of whether your assumption is right or not it doesn't change the fact that no ill consequences came to the person targeted due to the use of a Stingray or other devices.

The only difference between the two, at least in regards to the rules, is that it was a lot more uncommon for us to discover an American where we were at, but as far as that the rules were exactly the same regarding the use of special collection means against US persons.

and lastly we are WAY off topic. so lets just let it rest on that and get back to the actual FBI/airplane part of this thread.

Maybe not that far off topic. We have no idea what sort of equipment is being deployed in these aircraft.

The question is, could this cause a chilling effect on communities where these flights are taking place? The church committee decided that collection was fine as long as it did not create a chilling effect on people's rights. We are coming up on an election year. Could some of the flights be used to collect information on political activists? Might someone belive that they were?
Is that taking the thread too far off topic?

Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!

And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!

And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but

I never speculated on the aircrafts capabilities. I did ask in a trolling way, about the impacts of the aircrafts activities. Questions that should be asked in a free and open society whenever the government pulls the secret squirrel card when something makes into the mainstream media. (For the record, my favorite spill was Pres. Regan blabbing about stealth aircraft and the crazy concept art that popped up in the news almost immediately.) As far as research goes, these aircraft have been on my radar Since they were flying tight racetrack patterns over Quincey Mass after the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. I don't think they were attributed to the FBI at that time.
I can see how working for the DoD can lead you to place your trust in the many alphabet soup agency's.
Duty, Honor, Country, and an oath do defend the Constitution. Powerful stuff.
An oath not all who work within the various alphabet soups take.
Anyway. Back to President Regan "trust, but verify".
Still,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3fKoC9oH4E

EO footage of an MQ-1 Predator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PjR8v1njsg

FLIR footage from what looks like an MQ-5 Hunter test.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/flir-footage-of-taliban-engagement/2324830065001/

FLIR from an Apache

Does anyone notice just how little resolution there are in these images? Do we have the types of camera's that can see through walls and things like that? Yes.

Does the FBI have the budget to be mounting those things on Drones and taking a peak at your diary? No. Especially when the DoD doesn't have that type of budget.

Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.

What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.

As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".

The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.

My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.

Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.

 whembly wrote:
Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.

What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.

As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".

The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.

My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.

Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.

If you are honestly concerned then you should read FISA and EO12333

I believe FISA Title XI Deals with reporting, the gist of it is that the AG has to file a report twice a year with 3 different oversight committees that cover both congressional and judicial review. The Oversight is present.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!

And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but

I never speculated on the aircrafts capabilities. I did ask in a trolling way, about the impacts of the aircrafts activities. Questions that should be asked in a free and open society whenever the government pulls the secret squirrel card when something makes into the mainstream media. (For the record, my favorite spill was Pres. Regan blabbing about stealth aircraft and the crazy concept art that popped up in the news almost immediately.) As far as research goes, these aircraft have been on my radar Since they were flying tight racetrack patterns over Quincey Mass after the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. I don't think they were attributed to the FBI at that time.
I can see how working for the DoD can lead you to place your trust in the many alphabet soup agency's.
Duty, Honor, Country, and an oath do defend the Constitution. Powerful stuff.
An oath not all who work within the various alphabet soups take.
Anyway. Back to President Regan "trust, but verify".
Still,

I have as much trust in the "Alphabet soup" agencies as I do in the average person. The biggest difference is that I know the rules and laws that those organizations HAVE to follow. I also know how easy it is to stop someone who is operating outside the letter of the law. IN most intelligence units an auditor is in place over EVERYTHING and if you go outside your jurisdiction you quickly get put in place and more then likely if you do it on purpose you can go find a new job.

Whether you choose to read the laws and rules that govern these agencies is up to you.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.

What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.

As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".

The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.

My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.

Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.

If you are honestly concerned then you should read FISA and EO12333

I believe FISA Title XI Deals with reporting, the gist of it is that the AG has to file a report twice a year with 3 different oversight committees that cover both congressional and judicial review. The Oversight is present.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

Exalted my friend, thank you for putting it so bluntly. Speculating on the capabilities of an FBI plane regardless of evidence provided is not a good way to argue a point or to go about living your life, that road leads towards conspiracy theories and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Instead of wild speculation about what these drones can or can't do, why not do some research on them first.

WTH is wrong with you DJ?!?!?! This is DAKKA fer gawdsake. Now go smack golf balls into the minefield as punishment!

And Jihadin...ive done that Sangin District 2011 I was hitting a 5 Iron with some friends at a known IED Location. we never hit it but

I never speculated on the aircrafts capabilities. I did ask in a trolling way, about the impacts of the aircrafts activities. Questions that should be asked in a free and open society whenever the government pulls the secret squirrel card when something makes into the mainstream media. (For the record, my favorite spill was Pres. Regan blabbing about stealth aircraft and the crazy concept art that popped up in the news almost immediately.) As far as research goes, these aircraft have been on my radar Since they were flying tight racetrack patterns over Quincey Mass after the Boston Marathon terrorist attack. I don't think they were attributed to the FBI at that time.
I can see how working for the DoD can lead you to place your trust in the many alphabet soup agency's.
Duty, Honor, Country, and an oath do defend the Constitution. Powerful stuff.
An oath not all who work within the various alphabet soups take.
Anyway. Back to President Regan "trust, but verify".
Still,

I have as much trust in the "Alphabet soup" agencies as I do in the average person. The biggest difference is that I know the rules and laws that those organizations HAVE to follow. I also know how easy it is to stop someone who is operating outside the letter of the law. IN most intelligence units an auditor is in place over EVERYTHING and if you go outside your jurisdiction you quickly get put in place and more then likely if you do it on purpose you can go find a new job.

Whether you choose to read the laws and rules that govern these agencies is up to you.

I have read the laws.
I know how they have been abused in the past.
I'm confident they are being abused and will continue to be abused, that is human nature.
Look at the IRS scandals. In the 1990's the IRS gets caught as a political tool of harassment. The tax audit process was used to target people who were polital adversaries of the administration. Fast forward today the IRS, despite a whole new set of regulations, escalated from simple procedural harassment to blocking targeted political groups from fair competition with groups favorable to the administration. Oh, true, don't have proof cause a computer broke and the emails lost. Lots of accountability there.

I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Just to be clear... in a way, I'm not too bothered by the FBI doing this... or, the potential for abuse.

What bothers me is that, oversight appears to be window dressing at best.

As frazzled mentioned earlier, "who's watching the watcher".

The fact that the FBI is using shell companies raises some flags, but, let's be honest here... you know they're going to do this. Just like it isn't surprising about the NSA's past activities.

My hope is that there remains strong oversight over these programs to ensure that our RIGHTS are protected. Furthermore, this oversight need to be robust and we should never, EVER have a system in place where we'd have to rely on whistleblowers.

Because, ultimately, the government exists to protect our rights. If we lose sight in that, that's where we get into trouble.

If you are honestly concerned then you should read FISA and EO12333

I believe FISA Title XI Deals with reporting, the gist of it is that the AG has to file a report twice a year with 3 different oversight committees that cover both congressional and judicial review. The Oversight is present.

Uh huh... this is the same administration that has a memo describing circumstances that it's legal to drone an American abroad.

So, forgive me for having a healthy dose skepticism when official claims it's all good.

 Wyzilla wrote:
I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.

If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.

Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.

8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.

If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.

Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.

8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014

If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.


This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.

If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.

Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.

8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014

If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.


This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.

Ok, explain how a stingray works.

Well typically stingrays exist near the bottom, and feed off of snails, shellfish, and smaller fish.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.

If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.

Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.

8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014

If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.


This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.

Ok, explain how a stingray works.

Sorry but I literally don't know what is publicly released about the device. Harris.com that's the website for the company that makes them, if your so inclined you may look up the specs there.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well typically stingrays exist near the bottom, and feed off of snails, shellfish, and smaller fish.

Too soon too soon, oh wait, you said snails not Irwin...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I hardly see how this is either controversial or surprising. FBI's been doing this gak for decades, not to mention it's not something you really need a court order for, no more than simply parking your car and taking pictures. They aren't going through the home without a warrant, they're simply circling above in a private flight snapping pictures.

If they are using a targeted cell interception system it is not simply snapping pictures. If they are using a system that mimics a cell tower, the infamous stingray, you would think that would be considered mass collection.

Simply taking pictures.
Here is a story for you.
FBI hires local photographer to take pictures of peace activists at public demonstration. Perfectly legal.
Photographer tells subjects of photos he is working for the FBI. Perfectly legal.
Subject of photo is sent photo with crosshairs over his head. We have a crime now!
Investigation discovers photo was taken by outsourced photographer.
Outsourced photographer says, hey I gave those photos to the FBI, I just did what I was paid for. Perfectly legal.
Person responsible for the scare tactics. Never found.
Our tax dollars at work.

8.3 Billion dollar FBI budget in 2014

If you don't know/understand how a stingray works and the operations behind the utilization of it, please stop posting about it. Stingrays are not utilized for mass surveillance because that is not their job.


This is one of my biggest pet peeves. People post things they believe are true and based on almost zero facts beyond a news article or two. Now instead of just 1 or 2 misinformed people who have no idea what they are talking about it becomes a public opinion and almost common knowledge. The spreading off half truths and lies is what makes news companies rich.

Ok, explain how a stingray works.

Sorry but I literally don't know what is publicly released about the device. Harris.com that's the website for the company that makes them, if your so inclined you may look up the specs there.

Not much info on exact stats for that program. Actually not at all found by a search of their site.
Bet that search got me on a list.....
Marketing list.
I used to get flyers from surplus arms companies for guns.... you know, mortars and howitzers, other artillery. Not small arms.
They do have a high speed low drag catalog of communication equipment and services.
Not useful so far.