5 ms·

Radiolab did a show about these surveillance aircraft. In the show the host turns from skeptic to believer-- and here's why: The plane flies in a circle and r

Radiolab did a show about these surveillance aircraft. In the show the host turns from skeptic to believer-- and here's why: The plane flies in a circle and records activity. Later on a crime is discovered, say a garage break in . The police call the surveillance team and say 'Look at this spot' and the team rewinds the video and see a blue van pull up and break in. Then the play the video forward and find where the blue van went. Then the cops are dispatched to the blue van's spot and an arrest is made. Personally, I see the value in that system and am ok with it being deployed. Especially to places like West Baltimore.

Nadya 11y ago
The FBI saying "Yes, of course we have spy planes" helps. >"The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." (And then he bullshits and says they aren't equipped for mass surveillance. Just like how the government doesn't keep phone records and the NSA doesn't spy on the internet.) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-fbi-using-low-flying-spy-planes-over-us/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-fbi-using-low-flying-spy-plan...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Can we not extract aircraft details from FAA flight records, and operational capabilities from FOIA requests regarding what vendors are providing what equipment for these aircraft? Also, based on the aircraft's flight pattern characteristics (altitude, flight patterns) can we not infer equipment operating parameters?
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    Some blogger did pretty much that awhile back; https://medium.com/@MinneapoliSam/fleet-of-government-aircraft-flying-secret-missions-over-u-s-cities-84cbdf57dfbb#.7db0gnpzv https://medium.com/@MinneapoliSam/fleet-of-government-aircra...
mikeyouse 11y ago
The more powerful part of that episode for me was when they took the technology to Juarez and used it to identify a group of people who murdered a police officer who was on her way to work... They followed the killers to a safe house, where they were met by a different group of people who had committed another murder earlier, and several other groups of people. It's insinuated that they took down the specific cartel responsible for all of the deaths and that the leader had initiated 1,500 murders. It's hard not to feel sympathetic for a little privacy loss if you can take someone off the street who was responsible for so much death and destruction.
Rangi42 11y ago
There would have to be strong controls on the recordings so that (a) the police need a warrant to access it, and (b) they can only view the relevant time and place. And I don't mean "a person whose nominal job it is to control access," I mean actual incentives and technological barriers so that unauthorized access becomes difficult to impossible.
dalke 11y ago
Surveillance can certainly be used to solve crimes. But one of the issues is to get right the level of oversight, transparency, and trust in the system to minimize abuse. Because we have a long experience that these systems are abused. For examples: police have sold information - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22465173 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22465173 . Intelligence people have spied on love interests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT . City workers have used cameras to spy on a naked woman in her house - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4609746.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/460974... . This extends to companies as well, as when HP chair Dunn 'authorised the surveillance of board members and journalists' - http://www.alphr.com/news/enterprise/93590/hp-chairman-resigns-in-phone-tap-scandal http://www.alphr.com/news/enterprise/93590/hp-chairman-resig... . (I use that as a proxy for a likely scenario; should a government whistleblower send documents to the press about an illegal coverup, then the same surveillance technology used to find criminals can easily be repurposed to find the leaker.)
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Consider the potential uses against dissidents, too.
- rand334 11y ago
  It's not about oversight. They don't need to be spying on citizens whom are neither suspected of a crime nor have a warrant against them. I don't give a fuck it it solves crimes; I'd rather the criminals get away with it if this is the cost. It needs to stop.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Most forensic and evidentiary processes are pseudo-science at best this includes fingerprints which are still mostly matched by humans against smudges and not through some nifty CSI super computers since they well don't give as many positive results under any circumstances as law enforcement would like. Other stuff like lie detectors which are in quite often use in the US are complete nonsense. Witnesses are inherently unreliable, rarely they produce even remotely accurate testimonies, and in most cases tell the cops what they want to hear rather than what has actually happened. Expert witnesses including law enforcement agents constantly give flawed testimonies and are inherently biased based on the nature of the case and the apparent guilt of the perpetrator. Paid expert witnesses are even worse because they have a clear incentive to give testimony that will strengthen the case for the party which paid for their services, both state and federal level prosecutors have their pet experts that will tell the jury just what they want them to hear, same goes for many large criminal law firms. So far only 2 types of evidence seem to increase conviction rates while drastically decrease wrongful convictions and these are audio/video recordings and DNA. While I understand the fact that people do not like to be watched, and a smarter man that me once said that those who are willing to give up liberty for security are not worthy of either. In our current reality however increased privacy might actually result in loss of liberty, especially if you are a member of an at-risk group as far as unlawful convictions go.

Nadya 11y ago

The FBI saying "Yes, of course we have spy planes" helps. >"The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." (And then he bullshits and says they aren't equipped for mass surveillance. Just like how the government doesn't keep phone records and the NSA doesn't spy on the internet.) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-fbi-using-low-flying-spy-planes-over-us/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ap-fbi-using-low-flying-spy-plan...

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Can we not extract aircraft details from FAA flight records, and operational capabilities from FOIA requests regarding what vendors are providing what equipment for these aircraft? Also, based on the aircraft's flight pattern characteristics (altitude, flight patterns) can we not infer equipment operating parameters?
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  Some blogger did pretty much that awhile back; https://medium.com/@MinneapoliSam/fleet-of-government-aircraft-flying-secret-missions-over-u-s-cities-84cbdf57dfbb#.7db0gnpzv https://medium.com/@MinneapoliSam/fleet-of-government-aircra...

mikeyouse 11y ago

The more powerful part of that episode for me was when they took the technology to Juarez and used it to identify a group of people who murdered a police officer who was on her way to work... They followed the killers to a safe house, where they were met by a different group of people who had committed another murder earlier, and several other groups of people. It's insinuated that they took down the specific cartel responsible for all of the deaths and that the leader had initiated 1,500 murders. It's hard not to feel sympathetic for a little privacy loss if you can take someone off the street who was responsible for so much death and destruction.

Rangi42 11y ago

There would have to be strong controls on the recordings so that (a) the police need a warrant to access it, and (b) they can only view the relevant time and place. And I don't mean "a person whose nominal job it is to control access," I mean actual incentives and technological barriers so that unauthorized access becomes difficult to impossible.

dalke 11y ago

Surveillance can certainly be used to solve crimes. But one of the issues is to get right the level of oversight, transparency, and trust in the system to minimize abuse. Because we have a long experience that these systems are abused. For examples: police have sold information - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22465173 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22465173 . Intelligence people have spied on love interests - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT . City workers have used cameras to spy on a naked woman in her house - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4609746.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/460974... . This extends to companies as well, as when HP chair Dunn 'authorised the surveillance of board members and journalists' - http://www.alphr.com/news/enterprise/93590/hp-chairman-resigns-in-phone-tap-scandal http://www.alphr.com/news/enterprise/93590/hp-chairman-resig... . (I use that as a proxy for a likely scenario; should a government whistleblower send documents to the press about an illegal coverup, then the same surveillance technology used to find criminals can easily be repurposed to find the leaker.)

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Consider the potential uses against dissidents, too.
rand334 11y ago
It's not about oversight. They don't need to be spying on citizens whom are neither suspected of a crime nor have a warrant against them. I don't give a fuck it it solves crimes; I'd rather the criminals get away with it if this is the cost. It needs to stop.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Most forensic and evidentiary processes are pseudo-science at best this includes fingerprints which are still mostly matched by humans against smudges and not through some nifty CSI super computers since they well don't give as many positive results under any circumstances as law enforcement would like. Other stuff like lie detectors which are in quite often use in the US are complete nonsense. Witnesses are inherently unreliable, rarely they produce even remotely accurate testimonies, and in most cases tell the cops what they want to hear rather than what has actually happened. Expert witnesses including law enforcement agents constantly give flawed testimonies and are inherently biased based on the nature of the case and the apparent guilt of the perpetrator. Paid expert witnesses are even worse because they have a clear incentive to give testimony that will strengthen the case for the party which paid for their services, both state and federal level prosecutors have their pet experts that will tell the jury just what they want them to hear, same goes for many large criminal law firms. So far only 2 types of evidence seem to increase conviction rates while drastically decrease wrongful convictions and these are audio/video recordings and DNA. While I understand the fact that people do not like to be watched, and a smarter man that me once said that those who are willing to give up liberty for security are not worthy of either. In our current reality however increased privacy might actually result in loss of liberty, especially if you are a member of an at-risk group as far as unlawful convictions go.