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

FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#31

Post by shabble »

rayiner wrote: post #17
diafygi wrote: post #2

> "Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams," the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $5.1m for the program. Holy military state, Batman! It seems that the FBI has really taken to heart the change in mission statement from "law enforcement" to "national security"[1]. > The surveillance flights c…

It falls squarely within California v. Ciraolo, which says there is no expectation of privacy in anything visible from the air. It also common sense. Any shmuck with a general aviation license can take up an ultralight and see what he can see. So can the government. Jones involved a trespass on the suspect's property. Totally different situation.

Without knowing the details, it seems like they shouldn't really distil 'expectation of privacy' down a simple binary "could someone not breaking the law observe them or not" test.

IMO, the efforts to which that hypothetical person would have to go should influence just how much privacy a person could 'expect' to have. Otherwise why do people bother putting up privacy fences around their garden, when anyone could just fly over? Or hoist a camera on a stick?

The problem being that the more effort required to observe, the more confident an ordinary person could presume to be unobserved.

When we have UAVs that can loiter around (in public airspace, of course) random buildings and bounce laser microphones off the windows, along with thermal imaging and gait detection of individuals at a price that is affordable by average people, would that change 'expectation of privacy'?

As long as the tech is embargoed or ridicuously expensive, there's a distinct skew where the government can afford it and Joe Shmuck The Reasonable Individual can't.

In fact, the mere ability to continuously loiter for extended periods and make recordings is probably beyond an individual who doesn't have refueling support or additional friends in similarly equipped craft to change watches.

"If they could, then we can, will, and do"

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#33

Post by genericuser »

Retric wrote: post #24
josefresco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and…

Getting from the admitted targeted surveillance with to 'everyone is being watched' seems like a bit of a slippery slope argument to me.

I think, as you point out, that the overwhelming quantity of Data that would be produced by such an approach prevents this by creating a cost/benefit equilibrium for the FBI on the number of people they monitor with any regularity to build their cases.

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#34

Post by cma »

Retric wrote: post #24
josefresco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and…

How does more data hurt an investigation, if you are statistically literate? What is the conditional probability on that DNA test when it turns up a match with someone who also knew and was in recent contact with the murdered person and had a motive?

Same with watch lists, doesnt all the ineffectiveness go away if they have tiering or triage system?

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#35

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

msane wrote: post #25

I think this is our future, whether it's dystopian or not. 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 agai…

I think it sounds scary anyway.

I mean, I'd know everything about you -- where you lived, where you shopped, where you worked, where you ate out, where your friends lived, what you did with your friends, when you did it, etc.

I could even get further than you might imagine: I probably have a really good guess (>0.99) what you do at your work, given your activities outside of work and the people you associate with.

I tell your boss when you lie about being sick, I tell your insurance how often you do risky things when not driving, I tell your ex where she can find you at the club.

This is the future you're presenting, and claiming that there's some upside. On the contrary, I think humans can't handle it, and are literally going to drive themselves insane with machines.

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#36

Post by joshuapants »

msane wrote: post #25

I think this is our future, whether it's dystopian or not. 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 agai…

It's also probably a lot easier to capture a ping pong ball than a blimp. Then you'll have people reverse-engineering them and figuring out countermeasures. It'll be illegal, of course, but someone will have a way to defeat them and probably use it.

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#37

Post by Retric »

cma wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and…

How does more data hurt an investigation, if you are statistically literate? What is the conditional probability on that DNA test when it turns up a match with someone who also knew and was in recent contact with the murdered person and had a motive? Same with watch lists, doesnt all the ineffectiveness go away if they have tiering or triage system?

You’re now basing your case on circumstantial evidence which is considered near worthless for a reason.

If you have 5 suspects and then do DNA testing that's solid evidence. Ex: Paternity test. But, if you find someone with DNA testing you need to completely ignore that evidence after that point as 100% of its predictive power has already been used.

PS: To show just how easy it is to mess this stuff up. Suppose a murder occurred in NY city and the DB returned 20 people so you look at the closest 3 suspects and aha someone lives just 10 miles from the crime! However, note you already picked someone that was close by so you need to consider the odds that someone who lives close by happens to lives in the area. EX: A high percentage of people living in say NY state also live within 10 miles a crime in NY City.

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#38

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

cma wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and…

How does more data hurt an investigation, if you are statistically literate? What is the conditional probability on that DNA test when it turns up a match with someone who also knew and was in recent contact with the murdered person and had a motive? Same with watch lists, doesnt all the ineffectiveness go away if they have tiering or triage system?

> Same with watch lists, doesnt all the ineffectiveness go away if they have tiering or triage system?

If properly used, perhaps. However, the standards for government forensics have been... questionable.

Generally speaking, government "tests" seem more focused on confirming the prosecutor or investigator's theory than on actually resolving truth about facts.

You seem to be assuming a great deal of statistical literacy on the part of people utilizing these database tools, which I'm not sure is a solid assumption.

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#39

Post by Retric »

genericuser wrote: post #33
Retric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and…

Getting from the admitted targeted surveillance with to 'everyone is being watched' seems like a bit of a slippery slope argument to me. I think, as you point out, that the overwhelming quantity of Data that would be produced by such an approach prevents this by creating a cost/benefit equilibrium for the FBI on the number of people they monitor with any regularity to build their cases.

License plate scanners are actually just scanning everyone so there is no slippery slope involved. Right now we are all being watched. It's a pure cost issue; camera + OCR + database lookup is really cheap so just tag everyone.

Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

#40

Post by themeek »

A host of interviews and discussions in Washington such as the Holder interview on drone use in America and the legislation from the FAA on drones highly suggests that large drone systems (ARGUS) will be permanently placed in America's skys and that the use of predator drones on American citizens inside American borders deemed to be a threat to national security would be proper depending on official policy.
Post reply on HN