131–138 of 138 posts
Why use front companies and hide their activities? They are domestic law enforcement and not intelligence; shouldn't what they do be mostly out in the open?
1. These are most likely not front companies but ISR contractors. 2. FBI is both a law enforcement and intelligence organization.
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…
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT - SAN BERNARDINO, CA
No location coordinates provided though. I wonder if this is anything related to an ongoing investigation, or just a coincidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
Mode-C and Mode-S responses are sent when interrogated by secondary radar. ADS-B transponders with "Extended Squitter" transmit regularly while active, so no need to transmit your own interrogation pulses.
Its possible to monitor Secondary Radar pulses, and Mode C returns. It would require multiple geographically separated receivers to triangulate. I don't think FlightAware supports Mode C, only Mode S(MLAT) and ADS-B.
If you transmitted your own "secondary radar" pulses, the FAA and/or the FCC would probably launch a criminal investigation, with the FBI involved. Making your own "secondary radar" would be pointless and high risk.
Sounds like a crock if I ever heard one.
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…
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-nypd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radar has been used to do continuous ground surveillance since the 60s [0]. Most people associate it with anti-armor, but it was originally used to track humans beneath the jungle canopy. Systems had been developed to collect and integrate that data for event analysis long before its application in Iraq. Ross McNutt is simply selling a product, and cameras are easier to sell than radar sensors. [0] https://www.ll.mit…
Visible light imaging presumably offers easier perpetrator identification, though.
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.
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…
I think the muffler is more to carry the exhaust away from the surveillance equipment than to quiet the plane down.
That said, this planes survalence package was probably a guy in the right seat with a 35mm camera. If a camera was mounted on the belly or a window for one installed, that would appear in the airworthiness history. And besides, the police operated this plane in the 80s and 90s, when taking a zillion pictures and sorting through them later wasn't economic.