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

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#101

Post by adinb »

neurotech1 wrote: post #78
mentat wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running without ADS-B around major airports would be unacceptable. I think drones are going to be required to have them before 2020 which makes me think that isn't quite right.

With ATC notified, the helicopter could revert to Mode-C [0] transponder mode, using an assigned transponder code and ATC would still track them safely. TCAS [1] would also still function safely when interrogated by secondary radar. ADS-B reduces controller workload as they don't have to manually tag individual aircraft, especially in a high traffic area. ADS-B also works without secondary radar interrogation. When t…

Flight aware just announced real-time flight tracking data (US & Canada). [1] Also, they will be adding MLAT data. (US)

[1] https://flightaware.com/news/article/Realtime-Flight-Status-...

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#102

Post by nommm-nommm »

sixothree wrote: post #100
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it's completely legal to follow someone every place they go? I thought that was very illegal.

Harassing someone is generally illegal, which can include following them around, usually to intimidate them.

If you are following someone in the matter the police would they won't know they are being followed, which is part of what private investigators do.

Just don't harass them. If they catch you and tell you to stop and you don't - then you are veering into harassment territory.

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#104

Post by bottled_poe »

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 question should be about how targeted the FBI's operations should be. Collecting as much data as possible does not seem targeted to me. I also think the value to society is dubious.

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#105

Post by cmurf »

repiret wrote: post #95

I own a Cessna 182 that was originally owned by the Washington State Police. While they owned it they added an automotive-style muffler (planes don't normally have mufflers) to use it for stealth surveillance. They tore that all out before they sold the plane. There's a pretty complete description of what they did in the Form 337 history: http://mike.laiosa.org/N6594E/Airworthiness.pdf - see in particular pages 27 an…

Neat plane, 182. I must have ~1500 hours in that model. Simple, normally aspirated, non retractable gear, constant speed prop, really good IFR training plane. Good trip plane, loading and fuel wise. Never a concern getting it into and out of small tenor gravel strip airports.

Police surveillance, makes sense, relatively inexpensive to operate, but good loading for whatever gear they're carrying.

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#106

Post by cpncrunch »

ryanmonroe wrote: post #83
insickness wrote: post #81

I have to say, I'm really not against this. I used to read about privacy people getting pissed at all the CCTV surveillance in London, etc. And it concerned me. But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I agree with this. You can't make laws forbi…

>if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in public, why should we forbid our government? I don't understand this comparison. The very fact that the surveillance is being done by the government changes the meaning of the action. Citizens don't have the power to do anything with the information they might gather through surveillance. Citizens don't have the ability to force all other citizens to pay them more mo…

You're poisoning the well here. There's no evidence that the government is gathering surveillance for any nefarious purpose, or that they're doing it just for the fun of spending your (the taxpayer's) money.

In fact, your argument is somewhat ironic, as it is the same logic used by the police to prevent photographers from photographing in public, as descibed by the OP.

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#107

Post by cpncrunch »

repiret wrote: post #93
insickness wrote: post #81

I have to say, I'm really not against this. I used to read about privacy people getting pissed at all the CCTV surveillance in London, etc. And it concerned me. But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I agree with this. You can't make laws forbi…

I think the question is how the character of the surveillance changes when technology allows it to be done at larger scales with longer retention and more data mining. I think this a central question in modern privacy policy. You could argue that since its appropriate for the cops in a patrol car to look around, and cite someone they see jaywalking, it would be appropriate to install 360° high resolution cameras, to…

Something like this is happening in Surrey, BC. They are in the process of installing 400 traffic cameras purely to stop crime, and the police will have 24 hour access to all cameras. Pretty much everyone is in favour of this, as they are fed up with the almost daily shootings.

The people in Surrey had to make a decision as to whether they prefer living in a crime-ridden shithole, or if they prefer 24-hour surveillance. They chose the surveillance.

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#108

Post by cpncrunch »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #89
insickness wrote: post #81

I have to say, I'm really not against this. I used to read about privacy people getting pissed at all the CCTV surveillance in London, etc. And it concerned me. But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I agree with this. You can't make laws forbi…

Citizens can't build a case against other citizens based on their photos. They also can't photograph tens of thousands of other citizens, tracking their exact locations and movements over hours and days. We should forbid our government because they have power, and it ought to be limited.

What exactly are you saying they are doing? Is there any evidence (or even suspicion) that they are doing this? They say that these flights are used for "specific, ongoing investigations".

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveilla...

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#109

Post by bigiain »

neurotech1 wrote: post #78
mentat wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running without ADS-B around major airports would be unacceptable. I think drones are going to be required to have them before 2020 which makes me think that isn't quite right.

With ATC notified, the helicopter could revert to Mode-C [0] transponder mode, using an assigned transponder code and ATC would still track them safely. TCAS [1] would also still function safely when interrogated by secondary radar. ADS-B reduces controller workload as they don't have to manually tag individual aircraft, especially in a high traffic area. ADS-B also works without secondary radar interrogation. When t…

I wonder if a $12 TV Tuner RTL-SDRs can listen in to secondary radar triggered TCAS responses? (I wonder how much trouble you'd get in for setting up a USDR or HackRFOne to transmit your own "secondary radar" signals to make the TCAS respond?)

Re: Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above

#110

Post by cpncrunch »

insickness wrote: post #81

I have to say, I'm really not against this. I used to read about privacy people getting pissed at all the CCTV surveillance in London, etc. And it concerned me. But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I agree with this. You can't make laws forbi…

There is a large libertarian contingent on HN who automatically think the government is out to get them, so any time anything like this comes up you always get the inevitable "fuck the FBI" type comments, and downvoting of any attempt to look at the facts logically.
Post reply on HN