Wait until HN learns about satellite surveillance.
It's like plane surveillance- except it's in the air for decades at a time.
FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
81–90 of 229 posts
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#82Watchbird[1] coming next?
[1]. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579
See also https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-a...
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
The surprising thing was how easy it was to do this. Really, all you had to do was look: These planes seem to literally use (unencrypted, easily decoded) transponder codes that mean "FBI surveillance", the public records show company names that mostly fit a simple regex, and one of the front companies even has the exact same address as the U.S. Dept of Justice.
JJ, I love your research on this, with SDR Dongle. I'm building up my ADS-B receiver with a NooTech SDR. One question, you talked about capturing squawks with your SDR - did you try for ADS-B or do you know if these aircraft employ it? This would give you location. Kudos to you, man!
Yes, I use dump1090 which can decode Mode S/ADS-B with or without location and Mode A/C.
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#84Haven'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?
Definitely reminds me of this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/suspense/flowers_by_i...
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>It also common sense. No it isn't. Any Schmuck has no authority to enforce laws.
Are you arguing the enforcing the law is a bad thing? I think it's clear people arguing this line of thinking aren't pro privacy, they just want people to get away with crimes.
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How do you reconcile [1] with the use of Stingray-like technology from outside the home (whether in the air or not)? Stingrays are not commonly available to the public, so no "shmuck" can go up there and do this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
I don't know how I feel about Stingrays. On one hand, I think if your phone is spewing out all sorts of information about you into the aether, that's your problem, not the government's. On the other hand, pretending to be a cell tower is an active process, unlike a purely passive device like an aerial camera, and that seems "more search-y" to me.
The solution, of course, is to not have utterly retarded cell phones that blindly trust whatever claims to be a base station.
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a vast gulf between a random schmuck with some aerial imaging and a global, totalitarian, surveillance state with nearly omniscient powers. This stuff is merely yet another database input.
Totalitarian?
Nearly omniscient?
US law enforcement can't even keep bombs off airplanes, drugs out of prison, and people from getting away with murder.
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#88I 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…
not only in that context worth a read:
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#89If you need to hide your surveillance behind fake companies, then you can probably surmise that it will not be met with public approval.
Re: FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I agree that some of the possibilities of such tech are scary. However, putting on my optimist hat, they are only possibilities. Of course it will be possible to do such things. The question then becomes: why would anyone do them, and (somewhat linked) what are the chances that anyone will do them to you? > I tell your boss when you lie about being sick, I tell your insurance how often you do risky things when not dr…
> The question then becomes: why would anyone do them, and (somewhat linked) what are the chances that anyone will do them to you?
Let me rephrase the items from the GP comment:
1. A company that your boss hires will tell him when you lie about being sick.
2. Your insurance company pays to find out how often you do risky things when not driving
3. where-is-she.com charges 29.99 per month to report on someone's location at any time, using open drone surveillance data.
The point is, all of this can be turned into businesses and government services. In my opinion it's damned scary. I like Snowden's remarks on the topic:
> Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.