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

Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

aclu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#121

Post by Houshalter »

WalterBright wrote: post #120
Houshalter wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of people that support mass surveillance, they are just in the minority and unlikely to speak up about it in a place like HN. I'm torn between the two positions. I really like the libertarian idea that the government's power should be limited and surveillance is scary and intrusive. On the other hand I think the technologies are really cool. When license plate readers first started coming out I read…

Be careful about desiring zero crime. Some professor did a study and found that on average every citizen commits 3 felonies a day. Enforce all laws 100% and society would cease to function. (And this is ignoring the problems with vague and contradictory laws.)

Almost all of which are victimless crimes. I'm not saying the police should search everybody's house or monitor everything they do on the internet. Merely recording what happens in public like this is should be sufficient.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#122

Post by shitlord »

beat wrote: post #28
diminoten wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You basically say mass surveillance is (figuratively) "literally Hitler", and you think that's an "unpopular opinion" on HN? Well, have I got some fortunate news for you... The fact is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a police department flying an airplane over an area under their jurisdiction with the intent of surveying the area as an intelligence gathering activity. What's actually absurd is the idea that th…

There are limits to jurisdiction, well defined. For example, police cannot enter your home without your permission, unless they have a warrant from a judge. So if the airplane surveillance is being used to collect and act on data that would normally require a warrant, then "jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Even having the ability to do this is problematic in the eyes of many judges and many civilians (it would be the…

If the airplanes are just capturing data that is already in public view (no expectation of privacy), then how is that any different from cameras mounted on buildings? One uses a plane to cover larger ground, and one is fixed. Neither one requires a warrant if it's just recording things that happen out in the open.

I don't disagree with you, but this doesn't seem like a good argument.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#123

Post by bigiain »

Houshalter wrote: post #118
MattGrommes wrote: post #4

" Among the companies offering this technology are major defense contractors working for the Pentagon and an Ohio company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, which is trying to sell it to local police departments." I know this is an unpopular opinion these days but the people working for these companies should be ashamed. There is little use for this technology, especially on US soil, except mass surveillance of…

There are plenty of people that support mass surveillance, they are just in the minority and unlikely to speak up about it in a place like HN. I'm torn between the two positions. I really like the libertarian idea that the government's power should be limited and surveillance is scary and intrusive. On the other hand I think the technologies are really cool. When license plate readers first started coming out I read…

> There are plenty of people that support mass surveillance, they are just in the minority and unlikely to speak up about it in a place like HN.

Except for when you use phrases like "big data", "targeted marketing", "ad retargeting", "data science", "marketing optimization" or "marketing analytics" - in place of "mass surveillance". Then there'll be lots of people talking about and working on the problem.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#124

Post by voteforchange »

vonmoltke wrote: post #13
MattGrommes wrote: post #4

" Among the companies offering this technology are major defense contractors working for the Pentagon and an Ohio company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, which is trying to sell it to local police departments." I know this is an unpopular opinion these days but the people working for these companies should be ashamed. There is little use for this technology, especially on US soil, except mass surveillance of…

Also an unpopular opinion is that some people (I am not one of them FYI) think mass surveillance of the population is a good thing. It can be hard to understand that position, but there are people who believe mass surveillance, security theater, and the like really are protecting them and that it is all for their own good. As long as sufficient numbers of these people exist there will be not shortage of people who ar…

Even Obama thanks the pope for crackers

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#125

Post by fireinthefire »

jjwiseman wrote: post #101
jjwiseman wrote: post #96

The one tail number that the initial Washington Post article linked to is N39MY[1], which is a Cessna 182T registered to NG Research, PO Box 722 in Bristow, VA. That company's web presence is close to zero, basically below the noise floor. If you google [po box bristow va] you find FAA records for a bunch of other oddly named companies that all have similarly close-to-zero web presence and addresses that are PO Boxes…

Many of these planes have more antennae than I typically see on a small plane, e.g. https://flightaware.com/photos/view/168017-a0096f5188154b56a... which makes me wonder. I'd like to try to monitor and detect aerial Stingray-type equipment as well.

I'm developing a way to do that but I am not near any potential survelliance flights to test my ideas. Sounds like you're in an ideal location though! Let me know if you'd like to work together to build a robust solution for localization of DRTbox/Stringrays.

Private Message me on reddit if you'd like to discuss this further in private. My username is adsbadvanced.

Or post a way to contact you. I'll check back in a few days.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#126

Post by grrowl »

Houshalter wrote: post #118
MattGrommes wrote: post #4

" Among the companies offering this technology are major defense contractors working for the Pentagon and an Ohio company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, which is trying to sell it to local police departments." I know this is an unpopular opinion these days but the people working for these companies should be ashamed. There is little use for this technology, especially on US soil, except mass surveillance of…

There are plenty of people that support mass surveillance, they are just in the minority and unlikely to speak up about it in a place like HN. I'm torn between the two positions. I really like the libertarian idea that the government's power should be limited and surveillance is scary and intrusive. On the other hand I think the technologies are really cool. When license plate readers first started coming out I read…

It would be moral and fair for them to use their practically-unlimited budget and power on slurping up public data — licence plate readers, regular cameras on planes (without the power to see into private domiciles), public twitter feeds, public facebook feeds — and fight crime based on that.

There is no moral and fair reason for the government to secretly break their own laws, eavesdrop on private and privileged communications of their own citizens, and peer into areas previously designated as off-limits without a warrant. So mass surveillance itself isn't a huge problem, but the current implementation and the way it was put into place is.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#127

Post by twrkit »

vonmoltke wrote: post #13
MattGrommes wrote: post #4

" Among the companies offering this technology are major defense contractors working for the Pentagon and an Ohio company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, which is trying to sell it to local police departments." I know this is an unpopular opinion these days but the people working for these companies should be ashamed. There is little use for this technology, especially on US soil, except mass surveillance of…

Also an unpopular opinion is that some people (I am not one of them FYI) think mass surveillance of the population is a good thing. It can be hard to understand that position, but there are people who believe mass surveillance, security theater, and the like really are protecting them and that it is all for their own good. As long as sufficient numbers of these people exist there will be not shortage of people who ar…

Along the lines of people who think mass surveillance is a good thing:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#128

Post by eCa »

corin_ wrote: post #75
sjm-lbm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since, for whatever reason, I enjoy tracking flights as a hobby, here's a couple of extra tidbits: 1) If you are in the right area, Flight Radar 24 might actually give you the equipment for free. See here: http://www.flightradar24.com/free-ads-b-equipment for info. 2) It is unlikely that even aircraft that the government desires to be secret will stop broadcasting ADS-B anytime soon, as one of the major usages is avo…

I know absolutely nothing about this so forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question. ADS-B broadcasts so that other planes can figure out where you are and avoid you, correct? Why can't spy planes stop broadcasting it, but then listen for other planes' ADS-B signals, and just make sure to stay away from them? That way the only crash might be between two different spy planes?

There has been quite a few incidents in Europe concerning a certain neighbor of the EU doing this [1].

[1] http://www.google.com/search?q=transponder+russia

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#129

Post by hueving »

seniorghost wrote: post #112
hueving wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're shutting off the phone. What's the point?

I believe certain signals are transmitted from your phone even if it's "off". Removing the battery might stop some of them, but even this supposedly doesn't stop everything.

Do you have a source for this? It seems completely wasteful and against the interests of the manufacture not to sell a piece of shit.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#130

Post by ska »

mpyne wrote: post #115
ska wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem a lot of people have is with the "mass" part, not the "surveillance" part, of mass-surveillance.

Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic. Flying in public airspace taking video of public locations is just another GoPro ad though. Except, apparently, when it's the police taking the video (though in fairness, the Supreme Court has restricted what police can look at and what sensors police can use, even from public airspace). But, I've got a good solution: Strap t…

> Mass surveillance of the type where a warrant would be required individually is problematic.

Yes, yes it is. It isn't at all clear that the potential benefits of allowing it outweigh the potential costs.

Post reply on HN