Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US • Hacker News Board

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#301

Post by ultrarunner » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #35

ultrarunner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that sending a sternly written letter should have any bearing on one’s conscious. I upvoted GP, but on the same note I know there is nothing we can do at this point against a powerful bureaucracy with a lot of ideological and financial incentive to proceed. That this has continued and accelerated under multiple administrations with varied talking points should tell you everything you need to know about…

That's sad. So why even have kids, or go to work?

Being sad does not make it untrue. Indeed, many political problems seem to stem from an unwillingness to grapple with truths that make people uncomfortable.

I’m not sure why you think an unaccountable political regime relates to children and work— there are plenty of obvious and unrelated answers as to why people do those things.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#302

Post by mr_overalls » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #197

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.…

The novelty here is a further reduction in cost by mounting it on balloons, but gorgon stare platforms for total surveillance have been rolled out in cities in the U.S. for several years now with plane-mounted camera arrays. Baltimore’s PD deployed it in secret in 2016 with money from a private donor without even informing the mayor. The cost is rapidly falling to the point of inevitability for government actors and…

> Criminals could observe people and car movements in entire neighborhoods

Isn't deploying an airborne surveillance platform (if it has sufficient altitude to survey a useful area) an incredibly conspicuous thing to do?

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#303

Post by mantap » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 3:51 AM UTC

jammygit wrote: post #292

senorjazz wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? The chinese are slowly removing democratic institutions away from the people. The people are rising up to protect them without guns. Democratic norms are slowly being eroded from the US as well. Extreme gerrymandering, electoral college / popular vote, overt foreign interference, requested foreign interference, voting irregularities, voter purges…

> but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Your comment didn’t address the quote. If Hong Kong citizens were all armed, what would be happening right now? Is there a similar historical situation we could look at?

If the HK citizens were all armed, China would roll in the tanks. Good luck shooting at a tank. We live in the 21st century not the 19th.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#304

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 5:08 AM UTC

mgamache wrote: post #225

anigbrowl wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP talked about people entering the surveillance game in general, not necessarily operating their own blimps. Smaller outfits will find ways to game the existing rules and add surveillance capability thereto.

the cameras are all made by Huawei, so they probably get a live feed anyway :)

Ha, shades of The Thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#305

Post by ptero » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 11:50 AM UTC

NikkiA wrote: post #258

ptero wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAA wields enormous (usually dictatorial) powers in things that refer to safe flight and will easily trump Pentagon there. It would not lift a finger on privacy, but will likely enforce that all such balloons carry transponders. This is not a consolation here, but just a note that in its fiefdom FAA will win.

The pentagon has free reign to pretty much define any TFR and the FAA just has to accept it.

Can you provide some examples? I think FAA is usually involved at all stages and should those planned TFR be a pain safety-wise (e.g. encroach on a landing pattern), Pentagon is told to come back with a better plan.

Those two organizations work together all the time and know what works, so such conflicts are rare, but in a direct confrontation I think FAA easily wins.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#306

Post by nan0 » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 2:54 PM UTC

mantap wrote: post #303

jammygit wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what Hong Kong would be like right now if all citizens hard arms? Your comment didn’t address the quote. If Hong Kong citizens were all armed, what would be happening right now? Is there a similar historical situation we could look at?

If the HK citizens were all armed, China would roll in the tanks. Good luck shooting at a tank. We live in the 21st century not the 19th.

Not a great argument, look at our 19 year war in Afghanistan.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#307

Post by pintxo » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

mgamache wrote: post #248

mirimir wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. But small balloons at 15-20 km? That don't reflect much light? Seems iffy to me. But maybe so. I wasn't thinking of massive physical damage. Just nuking the FPAs. Or perhaps small rockets. But guidance systems are hugely illegal to develop. Chaff might work to mask movements temporarily. Or wildfires, I suppose. Not that anyone sane would do that.

"guidance systems are hugely illegal to develop" Curious what laws cover this? I am sure they exist, just not explored this at all. Isn't GPS a 'guidance system'?

> The U.S. government controls the export of some civilian receivers. All GPS receivers capable of functioning above 18 km (59,000 ft) above sea level and 515 m/s (1,000 kn; 2,000 km/h; 1,000 mph), or designed or modified for use with unmanned missiles and aircraft, are classified as munitions (weapons)—which means they require State Department export licenses. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Rest...

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#308

Post by brokenmachine » Tue, Aug 06, 2019, 12:58 AM UTC

nan0 wrote: post #306

mantap wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the HK citizens were all armed, China would roll in the tanks. Good luck shooting at a tank. We live in the 21st century not the 19th.

Not a great argument, look at our 19 year war in Afghanistan.

I'm sure some military nuts will correct me but isn't the problem with tanks in Afghanistan the mountains? Tanks don't work very well in mountains.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#309

Post by brokenmachine » Tue, Aug 06, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

m3kw9 wrote: post #40

To those that are profound, the US has mass surveillance since the first satellite with camera was in orbit

I found it really interesting when that link came up on HN recently of a spy telescope taken by an amateur. Can't find the story now unfortunately.

I knew the Hubble was cool, but on that page it mentioned that this telescope was one of ten that the military had pointed at the Earth that are now deprecated.

Imagine what they have now that is even better than ten Hubbles.

Re: Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US

#310

Post by lovemenot » Tue, Aug 06, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

nosianu wrote: post #300

lovemenot wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ... the orders of magnitude of difference in effectiveness between a cohesive, trained and organised force and a bunch of individuals True for a head-on conflict, but the story in the article has the organised forces' equipment in a vulnerable place - 65Kft above a city. Asymmetric activity in such a theatre would favour the armed civilian, for now at least. Ground-based coordinated tracking with 1W laser on rudim…

You keep making really ridiculous assertions, my dear keyboard warrior. You and all the American gun nuts. Mind you, I served in the army (not the US one), battle tanks, so I'm hardly a pacifist. But you guys are just loudmouths who play too many video games and see too many Hollywood hero movies. No you won't win - and you will not even fight, apart from some very few not so bright people. Because you value your lif…

Haha. You apparently don't know my identity. Not that it's special or anything. But it's not American.

Anyway, I realise now that you were not really responding to what I said. And clearly not to me personally, as a non-American. You just needed a place to get up on your high horse.