121–130 of 138 posts
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…
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.
That is changing.
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.
Unfortunately most of my family gets horribly air sick, so mine is for sale - I'm looking for something cheaper to operate and cheaper to buy.
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…
Woah I did that, zoomed all the way out, found one aircraft over the "Firth of Clyde" (west of Glasgow). -320ft/m. Then it disappeared. Data issue or did that thing just crash? Screenshot of the data: http://i.imgur.com/2zvH6qO.jpg
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.
That's because it would be stalking.
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…
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 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 surveillan…
The reality is that most people are happy with some level of surveillance if it is done to reduce crime. There seems to be an automatic presumption by some people on HN (which appears to be a majority of HN users, based on upvotes/downvotes) that the US government is like some kind of Stasi police state. The reality is that there is always pushback when the government oversteps its bounds. Some examples: investigations into torture by the CIA, the FBI now getting warrants for Stingray operations, the Snowden fallout, etc. I guess it's good that there is a strong libertarian contingent in the USA, which helps keep your government in check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/ ).
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.
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 promoting a religion, why should we forbid our government?
If we can't forbid businesses from cutting unprofitable departments, why should we forbid our government?
If we can allow businesses to be run by the same people indefinitely, why should we forbid our government?
etc.