FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by Retric » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

genericuser wrote: post #220

Retric wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you completely misunderstood my comment. If you have an hour of video footage of a blue car that you happen to collect from an aircraft while tracking a suspect then on it's own that says vary little. Historically you need to track a suspect to there car and then follow a car so together it's vary labor intensive to track large numbers of people. However, if the blue car passed a license plate reader it stops…

And how do they automatically detect the criminal wrongdoing being committed by that car or its occupants? That is the part I don't get. Yes if they decide to look for John Smith, License plate 1AMJ0HN, then they can probably automatically find his car in that footage, and they can watch that footage to see what he was up to. But watching that footage and figuring out if he did anything they can prosecute him for is…

Did you forget about Speeding or the 1001 other traffic offences? Does anyone observe proper following distance for every second of every trip?

I suspect if you wanted to harass your ex-wife, or a dissident, then overhead footage of their car for a few hours would provide a multitude of crimes.

Sure, if you actually prosecuted everyone that's one thing, but selective enforcement plus mass surveillance is a very powerful and easy to abuse tool and you don't need anywhere near 100% coverage to make this effective.

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

#222

Post by godgod » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #187

dragonwriter wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, consider that ISIS is a product of the last time the US decided it needed to do more to rearrange the political situation in the region.

If ISIS is a product of US foreign policy, than the responsibility falls square on the US government to clean up its mess.

its impossible to clean up the mess when the US government continues to fund and arm ISIS which is Obama's private little army keeping Iran in check. Ever notice how ISIS is only bombed when they get outside the lines? Ever notice how ISIS keeps getting air drops of weapons on "accident?"

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

#223

Post by godgod » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

thoward wrote: post #95

To me it makes sense that the FBI needs a fleet of surveillance planes for investigations. It also makes sense that these aircraft carry civilian livery to be low-profile (same idea as an unmarked pursuit car). What seems f-ked up are the shell companies. Why not come out and say "we have surveillance planes; we need them for investigations; here's how much money we've allocated in our budget to operate them." The FB…

hiding suggests illegal activities which the FBI doesnt want to admit to.

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

#224

Post by lsaferite » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 3:37 PM UTC

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.

How does that play into this ruling though? https://www.eff.org/document/vargas-order-suppressing-video-...

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

#225

Post by tertius » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 4:56 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #161

toomuchtodo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear ideas on this. I am dismayed, nay, infuriated that we waste taxpayer dollars in such a manner when the returns have been found to be non-existent. Yet, I read about atrocities committed every day by ISIS and the US government sits back and does little. This is not the world I want to live in, and I have no idea how to solve these non-technical problems. EDIT: Regarding downvotes and the replies as of…

"and sell women into the sex trade" Because that is a problem we don't have in the U.S...

Downvotes for suggesting we have human sexual trafficing in the U.S. and it's a massive problem? Thumbs up to you guys.

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

#226

Post by tertius » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 4:59 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #107

toomuchtodo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear ideas on this. I am dismayed, nay, infuriated that we waste taxpayer dollars in such a manner when the returns have been found to be non-existent. Yet, I read about atrocities committed every day by ISIS and the US government sits back and does little. This is not the world I want to live in, and I have no idea how to solve these non-technical problems. EDIT: Regarding downvotes and the replies as of…

Going by the USA's history of waging wars against Islamic terrorism I think the track record is very poor. USA has lost a lot of money and has made situations only worse. There is no point saving some child in Iraq by taxing an American

A closer look at history should show that war is very profitable for this country. WMDs? No, profit.

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

#227

Post by davnicwil » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 8:31 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #218

davnicwil wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's very true - it's the point I address on the next line :-) > Increasingly advanced technology reduces the amount of effort, and to some extent, the prior knowledge about you required to do these things - but that doesn't automatically make them more likely to happen.

I disagree that it doesn't automatically make them more likely to happen.

Reading this back, I didn't phrase this in the right way to get across my meaning.

I'm totally not taking the extreme and naively idealistic position that ease of access won't make bad things more likely to happen. It will in almost all cases by some margin - I guess my real argument is that margin might be small enough that it's not really a big deal in practice.

And this is definitely my 'optimist' argument. It's what I want to believe is true, and I think there's some rational justification for it, as I've discussed. However, sadly I can definitely see the opposite case as well, and totally accept that it's not only possible, it could be the more likely outcome.

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

#228

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 8:51 PM UTC

davnicwil wrote: post #227

pavel_lishin wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it doesn't automatically make them more likely to happen.

Reading this back, I didn't phrase this in the right way to get across my meaning. I'm totally not taking the extreme and naively idealistic position that ease of access won't make bad things more likely to happen. It will in almost all cases by some margin - I guess my real argument is that margin might be small enough that it's not really a big deal in practice. And this is definitely my 'optimist' argument. It's w…

I want to believe that, too, but when Amazon is spending serious money on a one-press-to-order button - thus betting that ease of access will increase use - I'm pretty sure I don't want to argue the other direction :p

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

#229

Post by tn13 » Thu, Jun 04, 2015, 11:40 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #226

tn13 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going by the USA's history of waging wars against Islamic terrorism I think the track record is very poor. USA has lost a lot of money and has made situations only worse. There is no point saving some child in Iraq by taxing an American

A closer look at history should show that war is very profitable for this country. WMDs? No, profit.

It is not profitable for the country. It is profitable for third rate defense manufacturers who produce the hardware.