5 ms·

Good on the FBI/DHS, I say. Not everything is a conspiracy.

daveguy 11y ago
Yeah, one of the example traces was around Farook's home and workplace. If you see a map like this and your home and workplace. There are several repeated circle patterns which probably represent specific investigations. If both your home and work are offset in the center of these circles you have to be wondering what you did. Edit: and mosque home, workplace and mosque.
mtgx 11y ago
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to dislike it. Also, they tend to keep these actions secret, which doesn't bode well for government transparency and government trust.
- daveguy 11y ago
  Agreed. Circling surveillance planes are unsettling no matter if it is routine or not. I believe they should have warrants for these and maybe they do, maybe they don't. There is not enough transparency to know (even just a report of the number of investigations and outstanding warrants in cities or districts would be enough).
  - refurb 11y ago
    Why would they need warrants for watching a person in a public place? You don't have an expectation of privacy in that situation.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      There needs to be further refinement as to what actually constitutes "watching", e.g. with respect to duration, frequency, information monitored, etc. US v. Jones held that installing a GPS device on a car constituted a trespass against one's "personal effects". I think the similar argument here would be that a near constant observation of someone, even while in public, would amount to the same sort of search, even though one has a very low expectation of privacy while in public.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Jones was based on the classic idea that when the government does what would be a trespass if a private person did it, then a warrant is required. Observing someone in public is not a trespass, no matter how much you do it.
        rmxt 11y ago
        You are correct to say that you can't commit a trespass by observing someone in public. However, trespassing is not an exclusive test as to whether a search is permissible (though it was the applicable rubric for Jones). The Katz test still must be applied, above and beyond the trespassory test. The concurrences in the Jones opinion state "at the very least, “longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.” Swap "GPS monitoring" for infrared, EMF, video, audio tracking, whatever those planes are doing, and I think we are at the same level of "impinge(ment) on expectations of privacy." Is it your opinion that Alito and Sotomayor are barking up the wrong tree? Is this sort of extensive (i.e. multi-modal (visual, EMF, etc.)), and evidently prolonged, monitoring not an impingement on typical expectation of privacy? Sure, this isn't a trespass, but if a private person was doing this to you, wouldn't you want to call the cops? (Oh, wait...)
        rayiner 11y ago
        My point is that Jones doesn't really help you: the majority opinion focused on the trespass theory, and did not rely on the consequences of longer-term GPS monitoring. In my opinion, the whole "expectation of privacy" thing is reading words into the 4th amendment that aren't there. If you look at the phrasing of the text, which focuses on "searches" and "seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" it's clear that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from doing what would be a common law trespass (to the person, to real property, or to chattels). It's based on property rights, not privacy.
        sixothree 11y ago
        So it's completely legal to follow someone every place they go? I thought that was very illegal.
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      According to California v Ciraolo, you don't even have that expectation in your own back yard.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Aren't the flight data and plane registrations public information? Wouldn't it be dangerous to fly a plane "in-secret"?
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Planes can be registered to companies and the companies contracted by the agency/agencies. Those can be dry leases (without crew), allowing the agency to have operational control without ownership of the plane/registration. Of course, all of this supposes that it's important enough to be secret. It actually helps secrecy to fly some of these missions openly, meaning it's harder to find the ones that are clandestine.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Police investigations are generally secret for obvious reasons.
- readme 11y ago
  The problem with making public the methods they use to catch criminals is that criminals would then know how to evade the FBI... You can't investigate a criminal/terrorist and simultaneously tell the public exactly what you're doing, step by step. It's not practical. There are tradeoffs we all have to make. Idealism isn't compatible with the kind of work the fbi does.
hackuser 11y ago
> Not everything is a conspiracy. They are hiding it by using front companies, etc. So I think it qualifies as a conspiracy.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  A conspiracy to (partially) hide their identity from the suspects they're tracking? Would you suggest they put FBI on the register instead?

Yeah, one of the example traces was around Farook's home and workplace. If you see a map like this and your home and workplace. There are several repeated circle patterns which probably represent specific investigations. If both your home and work are offset in the center of these circles you have to be wondering what you did. Edit: and mosque home, workplace and mosque.

mtgx 11y ago

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to dislike it. Also, they tend to keep these actions secret, which doesn't bode well for government transparency and government trust.

daveguy 11y ago
Agreed. Circling surveillance planes are unsettling no matter if it is routine or not. I believe they should have warrants for these and maybe they do, maybe they don't. There is not enough transparency to know (even just a report of the number of investigations and outstanding warrants in cities or districts would be enough).
- refurb 11y ago
  Why would they need warrants for watching a person in a public place? You don't have an expectation of privacy in that situation.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    There needs to be further refinement as to what actually constitutes "watching", e.g. with respect to duration, frequency, information monitored, etc. US v. Jones held that installing a GPS device on a car constituted a trespass against one's "personal effects". I think the similar argument here would be that a near constant observation of someone, even while in public, would amount to the same sort of search, even though one has a very low expectation of privacy while in public.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Jones was based on the classic idea that when the government does what would be a trespass if a private person did it, then a warrant is required. Observing someone in public is not a trespass, no matter how much you do it.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        You are correct to say that you can't commit a trespass by observing someone in public. However, trespassing is not an exclusive test as to whether a search is permissible (though it was the applicable rubric for Jones). The Katz test still must be applied, above and beyond the trespassory test. The concurrences in the Jones opinion state "at the very least, “longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy.” Swap "GPS monitoring" for infrared, EMF, video, audio tracking, whatever those planes are doing, and I think we are at the same level of "impinge(ment) on expectations of privacy." Is it your opinion that Alito and Sotomayor are barking up the wrong tree? Is this sort of extensive (i.e. multi-modal (visual, EMF, etc.)), and evidently prolonged, monitoring not an impingement on typical expectation of privacy? Sure, this isn't a trespass, but if a private person was doing this to you, wouldn't you want to call the cops? (Oh, wait...)
        rayiner 11y ago
        My point is that Jones doesn't really help you: the majority opinion focused on the trespass theory, and did not rely on the consequences of longer-term GPS monitoring. In my opinion, the whole "expectation of privacy" thing is reading words into the 4th amendment that aren't there. If you look at the phrasing of the text, which focuses on "searches" and "seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and effects" it's clear that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from doing what would be a common law trespass (to the person, to real property, or to chattels). It's based on property rights, not privacy.
      - sixothree 11y ago
        So it's completely legal to follow someone every place they go? I thought that was very illegal.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    According to California v Ciraolo, you don't even have that expectation in your own back yard.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Aren't the flight data and plane registrations public information? Wouldn't it be dangerous to fly a plane "in-secret"?
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Planes can be registered to companies and the companies contracted by the agency/agencies. Those can be dry leases (without crew), allowing the agency to have operational control without ownership of the plane/registration. Of course, all of this supposes that it's important enough to be secret. It actually helps secrecy to fly some of these missions openly, meaning it's harder to find the ones that are clandestine.
rayiner 11y ago
Police investigations are generally secret for obvious reasons.
readme 11y ago
The problem with making public the methods they use to catch criminals is that criminals would then know how to evade the FBI... You can't investigate a criminal/terrorist and simultaneously tell the public exactly what you're doing, step by step. It's not practical. There are tradeoffs we all have to make. Idealism isn't compatible with the kind of work the fbi does.

hackuser 11y ago

> Not everything is a conspiracy. They are hiding it by using front companies, etc. So I think it qualifies as a conspiracy.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cpncrunch 11y ago
A conspiracy to (partially) hide their identity from the suspects they're tracking? Would you suggest they put FBI on the register instead?