Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#61

Post by rmxt »

rayiner wrote: post #49
rmxt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There needs to be further refinement as to what actually constitutes "watching", e.g. with respect to duration, frequency, information monitored, etc. US v. Jones held that installing a GPS device on a car constituted a trespass against one's "personal effects". I think the similar argument here would be that a near constant observation of someone, even while in public, would amount to the same sort of search, even t…

Jones was based on the classic idea that when the government does what would be a trespass if a private person did it, then a warrant is required. Observing someone in public is not a trespass, no matter how much you do it.

You are correct to say that you can't commit a trespass by observing someone in public. However, trespassing is not an exclusive test as to whether a search is permissible (though it was the applicable rubric for Jones). The Katz test still must be applied, above and beyond the trespassory test. The concurrences in the Jones opinion state "at the very least, “longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.”

Swap "GPS monitoring" for infrared, EMF, video, audio tracking, whatever those planes are doing, and I think we are at the same level of "impinge(ment) on expectations of privacy."

Is it your opinion that Alito and Sotomayor are barking up the wrong tree? Is this sort of extensive (i.e. multi-modal (visual, EMF, etc.)), and evidently prolonged, monitoring not an impingement on typical expectation of privacy? Sure, this isn't a trespass, but if a private person was doing this to you, wouldn't you want to call the cops? (Oh, wait...)

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#62

Post by cpncrunch »

ipsin wrote: post #59

FBI secrecy makes it hard to challenge these tactics, because it's not clear what "these tactics" are, and whose information is actually being gathered. The last aerial surveillance case I can recall is California v. Ciraolo, which was about surveillance with the naked eye. I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a legal challenge, but I also believe that the FBI would be likely to launder anything gathered via pa…

Is surveillance with the naked eye from the air illegal?

What objection do you have with the FBI tracking criminal suspects from the air?

Do you also object to the FBI staking out suspects from their cars?

(I'm not referring to Stingrays here, just surveillance from the air with cameras/eyeballs).

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#63

Post by carbocation »

danielrhodes wrote: post #50

Here's my guess based on the following info: - The article points out that the planes are typically only seen M-F, which suggests that what they are doing is usually not time-sensitive. - They mention the planes have a very high quality camera on board. - From the flight patterns, you can see they repeatedly circle the same location, but not apparently for hours and hours at time. When Apple first released their Maps…

Using FLIR for drug growing detection requires a warrant.

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#65

Post by cpncrunch »

hackuser wrote: post #46
johansch wrote: post #2

Good on the FBI/DHS, I say. Not everything is a conspiracy.

> Not everything is a conspiracy. They are hiding it by using front companies, etc. So I think it qualifies as a conspiracy.

A conspiracy to (partially) hide their identity from the suspects they're tracking? Would you suggest they put FBI on the register instead?

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#67

Post by throwaway1121 »

dylz wrote: post #4

I have to admit, https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2016-04-federal-surveillance-... is not something I would expect from Buzzfeed. Huge surprise.

Isn't this reaction exactly why one would want to rename the "investigative branch" to something else entirely?

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#68

Post by ipsin »

cpncrunch wrote: post #62
ipsin wrote: post #59

FBI secrecy makes it hard to challenge these tactics, because it's not clear what "these tactics" are, and whose information is actually being gathered. The last aerial surveillance case I can recall is California v. Ciraolo, which was about surveillance with the naked eye. I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a legal challenge, but I also believe that the FBI would be likely to launder anything gathered via pa…

Is surveillance with the naked eye from the air illegal? What objection do you have with the FBI tracking criminal suspects from the air? Do you also object to the FBI staking out suspects from their cars? (I'm not referring to Stingrays here, just surveillance from the air with cameras/eyeballs).

The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant.

"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right?

Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye.

Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars".

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#69

Post by cpncrunch »

ipsin wrote: post #68
cpncrunch wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is surveillance with the naked eye from the air illegal? What objection do you have with the FBI tracking criminal suspects from the air? Do you also object to the FBI staking out suspects from their cars? (I'm not referring to Stingrays here, just surveillance from the air with cameras/eyeballs).

The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant. "cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right? Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye. Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars".

>The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye was lawful, and did not require a warrant.

I realise that, but you said "I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a legal challenge" so I inferred that you thought the judgement was incorrect.

>"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things, right?

I'm not sure if you're trolling here. The slash meant "or" in this case, which should be been patently obvious.

>Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with the naked eye.

Of course, and it's not illegal AFAIK.

>Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the FBI staking out suspects from their cars".

The article doesn't mention "automated license plate readers".

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#70

Post by knz »

brbsix wrote: post #13

For anyone who wants to see the live data for themselves, go to http://www.adsbexchange.com/ , click 'Global Radar View'. Then click 'Menu', 'Options', 'Filters', then enable the 'Interesting' filter. It's a Sunday, so there's not too much activity. However there's currently an FBI Cessna circling west of Washington D.C. [0] There's also a plane gridding east of LA. [1] It's registered to Dynamic Aviation Group out o…

This assumes that surveillance aircraft have their ADS-B transponder on. It's not required until January 2020 (https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/faq/).
Post reply on HN