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

Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#211

Post by benevol »

maxxxxx wrote: post #2

If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Add voice, face recognition, surveillance drones, cheap data storage and AI to the mix it seems pretty soon everything you do in a public place will be recorded and analyzed. And all this can be done fully automated. I hope people will recognize that some laws need to change. Surveillance makes sen…

> If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984

This became obvious since the proof delivered by Snowden. And we don't need more proof.

What we need now is a way to roll the surveillance state back.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#212

Post by caf »

rdtsc wrote: post #162
caf wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably State law still applies to the activities of FBI employees in that state, unless the Federal government has passed a law specifically exempting them.

Interesting point. In regards to wiretaps https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesd... seems to imply that no, Federal Agents when investigating are not bound by State law but by federal law: --- Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorized by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to plac…

That example is not precisely on point though, because it involves a federal warrant - there's no doubting that the US Government can pass laws overriding relevant State laws where it has jurisdiction, and Federal warrants are ultimately authorised by a Federal law.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#213

Post by slededit »

avs733 wrote: post #199
slededit wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just go to your friendly local TV station's website: http://komonews.com/live/live-police--fire-scanner-11-20-201...

thats audio, and only some of it...I want location

They are helpful enough to announce their locations to the dispatcher on every call. It would not be difficult to find a specific unit if you wanted to.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#214

Post by oasisbob »

cplease wrote: post #116
bigiain wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subversive art project idea: A RaspberryPi(or similar) with a $12 TV tuner software defined radio, and a small database of the various frequencies and bands particular flavours of your local LEO and/or federal TLA use. I know our local highway patrol, for example, use at least: P25, police issued cell phones, iPads with cellular data, HF radio (at least on rural/country cars), and whatever they use for the data conne…

Already exists: http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/

Not the same thing at all.

Broadcastify requires self-censorship, their ToS prohibits broadcasting tactical, command, vice, narcotics, and other interesting channels.

Also, metadata and retroactive analysis is much different than listening to a live audio stream.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#215

Post by jflatow »

optforfon wrote: post #210
iamnothere wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many journalists, lawyers, political activists, and civil rights advocates would disagree with your characterization. Just because you personally aren't aware of abuses doesn't mean that they don't occur. Bush-era antiwar groups, Occupy Wall Street, leftist political groups, security researchers, environmental activists, whistleblowers, lawyers representing "sensitive" clients, and MLK himself... all have faced some…

Yeah, but wouldn't you agree that each time the government does overstep it's authority there is a backlash and they stop? Society seems to keep the government in check. Things like the MLK scenario are a lot less likely now-a-days. If you're say prodrug legalization, it's very very unlikely you'll be blackmailed for your extramarital affairs by a government official (in fact that seems kinda absurd). Yes bad things…

No, they never stop. 21st century governments use secrecy to avoid having to deal with the public. And they use national security to justify secrecy. Sometimes they screw up, or there's a leak (like with TTIP), but for the most part we don't know about what's happening until its too late to do anything about it. That's why you need to study history to see the pattern of abuse. Once you see how it happens historically, you can see pieces of the puzzle indicating where its still happening today. Or, you look to the few journalists still doing investigative reporting (e.g. theintercept.com) to expose the man-behind-the-curtain.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#216

Post by newjersey »

hanniabu wrote: post #188
geggam wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When "every single person is a criminal", That is tyranny ^

Tyranny? This is America!

Here is a fun fact about "don't talk to the police". The advice applies to everyone, even the police. The union regularly warns members about this. You cannot avoid answering questions as a police officer but if you're being compelled to talk without the presence of an attorney, there are limits on what the superiors can do with the statements.

So basically in case your superiors are planning to put criminal charges on you, you should ask if you are at liberty to not talk without an attorney present.

So remember when you hear the "don't talk to the police" line that even police officers don't talk to the police.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#217

Post by yarou »

rayiner wrote: post #37
rhizome wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you qualify your use of "private property" to account for the many ways in which the "property rights" are assessed in terms of the 4A, e.g. in terms of surveillance?

Personally, I don't think the 4th amendment has much to say about surveillance. It protects four enumerated property rights: houses, persons, papers, and effects. If you have a property right in something, the government needs a warrant. If you don't, it doesn't. I don't think surveillance is good, but I'm strongly opposed to twisting the interpretation of the Constitution to fight in courts battles that should be fo…

How is it democracy when a group of individuals hold concentrated amounts of power? And when I say individual, I mean corporations, based on current standing legal precedent.

I usually agree with a lot of the things you've stated on here in the past, but I'm really disappointed that you:

a) Conflate democracy with the current sham political system we have in the USA.

b) Don't think that the 4th amendment has much to say about surveillance.

The will of the few is not will of the people. That's the exact opposite when we think of democracy as the "tyranny of the majority".

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#218

Post by rdtsc »

caf wrote: post #212
rdtsc wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. In regards to wiretaps https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesd... seems to imply that no, Federal Agents when investigating are not bound by State law but by federal law: --- Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorized by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to plac…

That example is not precisely on point though, because it involves a federal warrant - there's no doubting that the US Government can pass laws overriding relevant State laws where it has jurisdiction, and Federal warrants are ultimately authorised by a Federal law.

Yeah this is not an exact case, the quote mentions the warrant part as well (that is why I pasted that part in), but thought it was similar because it is still Federal agents, in their line of duty, and court declared they get to disregard state laws.

The other interesting aspect is this is looked what Federal agents can do, not "How can we protect the privacy of our citizens? Let's see what we can do for them. Maybe they are entitled to more privacy because they live in California". This mirrors the attitude of the "expert" in the story, they just see the Constitution as an inconveniance you need to bypass in order to get your job done.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#219

Post by Eupolemos »

Mendenhall wrote: post #141

Hmm I wonder how this would work considering its all things openly available to be recorded. Follow a federal agent home from work and film them and their house. Film their children going to school and post pictures locations and times online, also taking photos of other relatives, friends etc and where they live and their phone numbers and post it all online. Have your friends join in and keep posting every detail a…

Bothering individual FBI-employees seems like a silly idea.

Reading this thread, it seems some people think the problem is that it is legal to record stuff in the open. IMHO, that is the wrong take on it.

Let's take license-plates. I don't mind that a police officer is able to see it and note where I am at a given time. But it becomes something quite different when we have surveillance-systems recording where every car is all the time. I do mind that.

It is the systems that are scary and ripe for abuse, not individuals.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#220

Post by s_q_b »

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a very misleading headline.

The article contains no evidence of a government-operated network of listening microphones in the Bay area. It deals with one incident using a specific piece of surveillance gear.

What we actually know is this:

An FBI agent was attempting to bust two individuals suspected of a bid-fixing scheme.

This FBI agent then placed two recording devices in a light fixture and another at the bus stop nearest the courthouse.

After the surveillance recorded enough incriminating evidence, the FBI/DOJ sought to introduce the recordings at trial.

All else was rank speculation by a former FBI employee named Jeff Harp.

He also stated, "If you’re going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home... that was the original intention of the Fourth Amendment," which makes me question his grasp of the constitution, and thus his reliability as an expert.

Post reply on HN