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

Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 315 posts

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#171

Post by Tharkun »

Waterluvian wrote: post #19
davisr wrote: post #5

I don't comment much, but I feel compelled to mention how this currently has a 36:1 vote-to-comment ratio. The kinds of thing the US military is testing on their own people is horrific, and it's our duty as American citizens to oppose this kind of surveillance. I sometimes feel I'm talking to a ghost. It is truly terrifying that my fellow Americans are selling themselves out. Ring will let the government, Amazon, and…

It's even worse for us non Americans. American public is generally more okay letting us get tested on. And we don't get to vote against it.

Yup. Apparently it's fine to spy on everyone else, everywhere else. Just not on US soil. Wiretapping everyone's communications, forcing SWIFT to forward details of everyone's bank transactions to the NSA. Because apparently the 7 billion non-Americans are all potential terrorists or some such nonsense.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#173

Post by jcims »

antpls wrote: post #152
ctrl-j wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Devil’s advocate here. Who’s to say they won’t use it strictly to deter drug trafficking and terrorism? Couldn’t they take steps to be transparent about what data is collected, and where it goes? What systems would you put into place to prevent abuse? What about bad cops who would misappropriate the intel? What would prevent them from tracking non-terrorist/drug related individuals? How do you prevent citizens from…

I can think of a system : at the next election, vote for a president with a program about systemic transparency and openness for all the agencies and organizations.

Transparency is not a passive feature, it requires active and vigilant maintenance to be effective. In this case, any and all access to any and all instances of any and all imagery must be controlled and accounted for in perpetuity or you lose transparency.

Allowing a system like this to be implemented under the guise of 'full transparency' is like a political trojan horse. All it takes is a loss of priority in that objective by the same or subsequent administration and you're left with a snake that you can't get back into the bag.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#174

Post by boomboomsubban »

whatshisface wrote: post #132
t-a4550 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

Can anyone really justify why dictators are bad without resorting to "and they do something bad?" I mean, you couldn't even explain to me why you wouldn't want me as a cosigner on your bank account without resorting to something like, "and then whatshisface does something bad." I think it's reasonable to believe in a slippery slope between "gun is pointed" and "gun is fired." I mean, just to play devil's advocate, yo…

>Can anyone really justify why dictators are bad without resorting to "and they do something bad

If a dictator is bad, the citizenship has almost no method of improving the situation. A benevolent dictator may be the best form of government, but there is no reliable way of ensuring it will be attained.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#175

Post by njharman »

t-a4550 wrote: post #129
apo wrote: post #49

> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending. Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.…

> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.” > “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these capabilities are imprisoned or execu…

> Who’s to say they won’t use it strictly

Them. Laws passed for one reason have already routinely been applied more broadly, data collected for national security has been passed to domestic law enforcement under parallel construction.

We don’t have to worry if government will abuse its power, we know they are doing it now.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#176

Post by sprafa »

rosser wrote: post #137
sprafa wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re low because of television. Hollywood is a cred game. The actual money since the 1950s has been on television. In fact Hollywood has never been as profitable, inflation adjusted, as it was before the commodification of television sets. Source: I study history of film. To think of Hollywood in the 20s, 30s and 40s - think of Silicon Valley. Entire cities were made in huge lots behind LA studios. Nobody does tha…

I've ha-ha-only-seriously described Hollywood as a complicated, interrelated set of financial instruments which as a by-product also produces movies for a while now.

I’d say you’re pretty bang on. I think it a changed in the 60s and 70s when bankers bought the place (again right after television gutted them).

Curiously in David Mamet’s new play, Bitter Wheat, a Weinstein type figure is described as money launderer.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#177

Post by dredmorbius »

maxheadroom wrote: post #170
bamboozled wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…

> This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. . ...but the way the U.S. laws are written, it's quite illegal to take up arms against or try to depose/overthrow the United States Government - no matter how totalitarian and authoritarian it might get. In fact, nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Consitution or the U.S. Code guarantees such right[s]. This is not to mention the reality that the arms controls…

There are (rare) cases in which armed resistance does not result in convictions, and/or in which prosecution of government agents is at least initiated, and civil redress made.

The Ruby Ridge incident comes to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

As does the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_Nati...

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#178

Post by slim »

ip26 wrote: post #108
mgamache wrote: post #82

I am not advocating this in the US or anywhere, but how would one disable a surveillance balloon as an act of civil disobedience if necessary (without ending up in jail)?

The point of civil disobedience (often) is to wind up in jail. Civil disobedience doesn't mean "no consequences", it means enduring the consequences as a form of protest to illustrate how absurd they are.

civil disobedience would be to down a max of balloons before getting caught, preferably never get caught

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#179

Post by dredmorbius »

mirimir wrote: post #93
mgamache wrote: post #82

I am not advocating this in the US or anywhere, but how would one disable a surveillance balloon as an act of civil disobedience if necessary (without ending up in jail)?

Lasers are the only workable option, I think. But locating a small object at some km altitude would be nontrivial. And hitting one with a laser would be ~impossible. Also, it would see scattered light long before you hit it directly. And even if it had an autonomous targeting system, there'd be a record of its movements. So it would be very hard so stay anonymous.

Blinding sensors, disabling transmitters (beamed energy / emp burst?), disrupting transmissions, or disabling the platform itself (balloon) would be the most obvious choices.

Legal challenges.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#180

Post by [deleted] »

nosianu wrote: post #162
bamboozled wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why many Americans won’t give their guns away. Imagine (not saying it would be a good outcome), but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Well maybe the whole thing wouldn’t have even started. But wow, it would be a very different scene. Instead it’s more a case of if the military wants to walk in and shutdown the place, it’s going to be a lot easier. Not entirely a gun rights advo…

Can't tell if the comment is satire. I guess it's best to assume it is and move on, since any discussion based on the assumption that it's not satire has already taken place many times, following predictable paths. Except that I can't keep myself from pointing out the orders of magnitude of difference in effectiveness between a cohesive, trained and organised force and a bunch of individuals, even if they were equall…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN