21–30 of 229 posts
Haven't they always done this? They've always used surveillance vans parked outside of suspect's houses with listening equipment, for example. They even used fake company names on the sides of the vans. Why should we be surprised they're using airplanes too?
Because now they can spy on millions vs 1. I think that makes the difference.
Haven't they always done this? They've always used surveillance vans parked outside of suspect's houses with listening equipment, for example. They even used fake company names on the sides of the vans. Why should we be surprised they're using airplanes too?
Because now they can spy on millions vs 1. I think that makes the difference.
Wait until HN learns about satellite surveillance.
FBI Agent in a Van: OK
FBI Agent in a Plane: Not OK
I'm assuming an FBI agent in a satellite would be really not OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because now they can spy on millions vs 1. I think that makes the difference.
What if the target (being monitored by said van) took off and "lost" the van in the sidestreets of US city? The FBI would be criticized for it's ineffective surveillance techniques. The plan is just an upgrade - the laws and controls (or lack thereof) are what is important - not so much the tech.
Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and the Boston Marathon bombers where on a list, but that list was simply too large to be useful because 99.9% of everyone on those lists ended up doing nothing.
Now consider something like a DNA database. With 100 million random people on it a 99.999% accurate test going to report a false positive every single time and most tests are nowhere near that accurate.
Technology is eventually going to make it impossible to really prevent "Persistent aerial surveillance". What requires an expensive small blimp today might become the size of a ping pong ball (or wide area flock of them) and come out of a 3D printer tomorrow.
So who will be using such tech? Governments and private entities alike - we can try to legislate against either but technology will probably overpower the legislation quickly.
So what is the impact of this sort of technology? Maybe it's not all George Orwell. Your bike was stolen on Third St at 1pm? Roll the video back or forwards to know exactly where the thief is. Someone shot up a nightclub and rushed out in a crowd? automated video analysis caught them.
Yes it sounds scary if it were a monopolized power, but eventually I don't think government will be able to hold monopoly on it.
> The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names – as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department – are liste…
If only that gumption extended to the US tax payer footing the bill to be spied upon.
Wait until HN learns about satellite surveillance.
How can an ordinary person tell if one of these spy planes is currently overhead? Is there some way to dink with them, similar to Matt Blaze's in-band signalling vulnerabilities discovery(s) ( http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf ) ? You know, use old phones that still have SIM cards, but have them try to register constantly? I'm a bit vague on cellphone protocol details, so spare me the nit picking, and get on w…
via http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/05/mysterious-plane-ha...
