18 ms·

FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities

379 points by tchalla 11y ago

diafygi 11y ago
> "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 comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said. Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance. Given the duration and location of these aircraft, it's very hard to see how these aren't an illegal search, given the past few years of judicial rulings[2][3]. It's become very clear that collecting movement data, even if that movement data is public, requires a warrant. No wonder the FBI wants to keep a layer of fake companies between it and these planes. Also, if you do collect wide area data for a specific target, can you keep the wide area data for use later on for another purpose? I volunteer for an organization[4] that works with cities to adopt privacy policies regarding the data they collect, receive, and share. To date, our privacy policies have mostly been focused on disclosing how local offices are sharing local data (license plate readers, stingrays, etc.) with the feds, but now it seems we need to add sections about disclosing incoming data feeds from the feds. [1]: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not-law-enforcement http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012... [3]: https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-vargas https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-vargas [4]: http://www.restorethe4th.com/ http://www.restorethe4th.com/
- stirno 11y ago
  I think your last point about data retention is really the big question. Given the ever-growing use of Parallel Construction in making cases from illegally obtained data (or data authorized only for a different use), its not enough that all these policies be stopped -- we need to address how long they can keep the fruits of their labor.
- dba7dba 11y ago
  It seems that the FBI has really taken to heart the change in mission statement from "law enforcement" to "national security After 9/11, that's what people seemed to demand.
  - dmix 11y ago
    That's not quite accurate, if you read the history of the FBI [1], they have been an intelligence agency as long as they've been a law enforcement one (pre-1950s, when it was called the Bureau of Investigation): http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812979230/ http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812... They pride themselves in the idea hardly no one in the American public is aware of this fact. 9/11 made them focus their intelligence abilities on terrorism but those capabilities were hardly new to the FBI.
- rayiner 11y ago
  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.
  - shabble 11y ago
    Without knowing the details, it seems like they shouldn't really distil 'expectation of privacy' down a simple binary "could someone not breaking the law observe them or not" test. IMO, the efforts to which that hypothetical person would have to go should influence just how much privacy a person could 'expect' to have. Otherwise why do people bother putting up privacy fences around their garden, when anyone could just fly over? Or hoist a camera on a stick? The problem being that the more effort required to observe, the more confident an ordinary person could presume to be unobserved. When we have UAVs that can loiter around (in public airspace, of course) random buildings and bounce laser microphones off the windows, along with thermal imaging and gait detection of individuals at a price that is affordable by average people, would that change 'expectation of privacy'? As long as the tech is embargoed or ridicuously expensive, there's a distinct skew where the government can afford it and Joe Shmuck The Reasonable Individual can't. In fact, the mere ability to continuously loiter for extended periods and make recordings is probably beyond an individual who doesn't have refueling support or additional friends in similarly equipped craft to change watches. "If they could, then we can, will, and do"
    - armorsmith42 11y ago
      The Illustrated Guide to the Law has some discussion of this question here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2201 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2201
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Wow. That's great. This panel explains why there is no 4th amendment protection of information you store in the cloud: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210.
bediger4000 11y ago
How can an ordinary person tell if one of these spy planes is currently overhead? Is there some way to dink with them, similar to Matt Blaze's in-band signalling vulnerabilities discovery(s) (http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf) ? You know, use old phones that still have SIM cards, but have them try to register constantly? I'm a bit vague on cellphone protocol details, so spare me the nit picking, and get on with the revelations.
- toufka 11y ago
  from u/jjwiseman >DOJ/FBI surveillance aircraft often squawk 4414 or 4415 on their transponders. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812
  - cinquemb 11y ago
    I think this is a great thing about HN. Through the noise of the donate links to this and that, others help propagate information how they are building tools that could help decrease the asymmetry of the landscape/ increase transparency surrounding these things in ways more grounded in realism. Hak5 had a couple episodes dealing with getting set up with SDR and such to be able to do this for yourself[0] that I didn't see covered in that thread which might be useful for others as well. [0] http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1525 http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1525
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  Probably by using something like: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoo... https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.SecUpwN.AIMSICD https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.SecUpwN.AIMS... I wish this kind of "firewall" was included natively in the operating systems, though, even as an opt-in feature. It's time for OS vendors to do something about it, just like they did with local storage encryption (enabled out of the box, even).
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
themartorana 11y ago
When it was imagined, we called it "distopian" - books were written and immortalized, movies were made, warnings were served. When it happened, there was barely a murmur.
- denzil_correa 11y ago
  > When it was imagined, we called it "distopian" I always though it was "dystopian" but your spelling made me check again. Apparently, "distopia" is used in some romance languages like Spanish - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distop%C3%ADa http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distop%C3%ADa Portuguese - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia Italian - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Neat. I didn't do that on purpose... I misspelled it, but I'll leave it since you have a neat point.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    They are two related terms A dystopia is a particular society like Metropolis in the 30's Fritz lang film film. Dystopian is how you describe say ubiquitous CCTV cameras.
  - juliangregorian 11y ago
    It's appropriate, too, as "dis" is Latin while "dys" is Greek.
deathhand 11y ago
>The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names – as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department – are listed on public documents and in government databases. Glad to see AP still has gumption.
- shit_parade2 11y ago
  If only that gumption extended to the US tax payer footing the bill to be spied upon.
  - kenbellows 11y ago
    ... are you suggesting that the entire US population refuse to pay any taxes until surveillance issues are fixed? Because that's a terrible idea.
    - tertius 11y ago
      Stopping tax payments isn't the only way to protest.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        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 1433272217: If ISIS wants us to engage them, we just sit back and allow them to rape whole villages and sell women into the sex trade? You don't go to war for oil. You go to war for human rights and to prevent the slaughter and abuse of innocent people.
ninkendo 11y ago
Haven'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?
- higherpurpose 11y ago
  Because now they can spy on millions vs 1. I think that makes the difference.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - josefresco 11y ago
    What if the target (being monitored by said van) took off and "lost" the van in the sidestreets of US city? The FBI would be criticized for it's ineffective surveillance techniques. The plan is just an upgrade - the laws and controls (or lack thereof) are what is important - not so much the tech.
    - Retric 11y ago
      The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and the Boston Marathon bombers where on a list, but that list was simply too large to be useful because 99.9% of everyone on those lists ended up doing nothing. Now consider something like a DNA database. With 100 million random people on it a 99.999% accurate test going to report a false positive every single time and most tests are nowhere near that accurate.
      - genericuser 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
happyscrappy 11y ago
Wait until HN learns about satellite surveillance.
- josefresco 11y ago
  FBI Agent on Foot: OK FBI Agent in a Van: OK FBI Agent in a Plane: Not OK I'm assuming an FBI agent in a satellite would be really not OK.
  - ta0967 11y ago
    no, that would be A-OK. load everybody onto the ISS and send it to orbit around Uranus.
  - cleaver 11y ago
    The key issues would be scale of the surveillance and warrants.
  - discardorama 11y ago
    Strawman. The issue is not the presence of the pilot in the airplane; it's the presence of high-res cameras, StingRays, etc.
- iyn 11y ago
  Well, I'd read about this, it's pretty interesting. Do you know any good articles/videos/resources?
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  It's like plane surveillance- except it's in the air for decades at a time.
msane 11y ago
I 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 against either but technology will probably overpower the legislation quickly. So what is the impact of this sort of technology? Maybe it's not all George Orwell. Your bike was stolen on Third St at 1pm? Roll the video back or forwards to know exactly where the thief is. Someone shot up a nightclub and rushed out in a crowd? automated video analysis caught them. Yes it sounds scary if it were a monopolized power, but eventually I don't think government will be able to hold monopoly on it.
- SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
  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 tell your boss when you lie about being sick, I tell your insurance how often you do risky things when not driving, I tell your ex where she can find you at the club. This is the future you're presenting, and claiming that there's some upside. On the contrary, I think humans can't handle it, and are literally going to drive themselves insane with machines.
  - msane 11y ago
    I sort of agree, but it just seems technology is going that way one way or the other. How could it be stopped? When/if that sort of tech happens culture would be very different to say the least.
  - davnicwil 11y ago
    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 driving, I tell your ex where she can find you at the club. All of these things were possible 50 years ago. They are possible now. They will be possible in 50 years. 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. For the vast majority of people the motivation to do such things remains extremely low relative to the motivation to do other more interesting things. > 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. Again, this is not far off being trivial with today's technology. Yet you can't imagine (at least I can't) what benefit or pleasure anybody would get out of knowing such information about a person today. Therefore it's extremely unlikely anyone will care enough to do it - evidenced by the fact that practically nobody does. Why will this change in the future? Taken to the extreme, ask yourself even if you could retrieve this information about any given person instantly, for zero cost or effort, would you even care enough to do it? Are the things you could do with that information more exciting or interesting than what you were otherwise going to do today? For how many people is that answer going to be yes?
patrickg_zill 11y ago
It is amazing how prescient the movie "Enemy of the State" (with Will Smith, Gene Hackman) was. And how it holds up to a second viewing even today.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I recommend you watch Coppola's The Conversation as well, which is what originally inspired EotS. It's far more atmospheric and psychologically tense.
  - rsync 11y ago
    Agreed - The Conversation is quite good.
jjwiseman 11y ago
I've written up my findings (almost 100 aircraft, 17 front companies) and how I reached them at https://storify.com/jjwiseman/tracking-fbi-aerial-surveillance https://storify.com/jjwiseman/tracking-fbi-aerial-surveillan...
- jjwiseman 11y ago
  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.
  - god_bless_texas 11y ago
    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!
    - jjwiseman 11y ago
      Yes, I use dump1090 which can decode Mode S/ADS-B with or without location and Mode A/C.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - RyJones 11y ago
    almost like they weren't trying with that last point.
  - upofadown 11y ago
    Since you can look up the aircraft based on the N number using the same transponder code doesn't really make much difference.
themeek 11y ago
A host of interviews and discussions in Washington such as the Holder interview on drone use in America and the legislation from the FAA on drones highly suggests that large drone systems (ARGUS) will be permanently placed in America's skys and that the use of predator drones on American citizens inside American borders deemed to be a threat to national security would be proper depending on official policy.
suprgeek 11y ago
Video/Cell surveillance with a Judges order by the FBI (a NON-FISA Judge - the FISA ones are Rubber Stamps) is how the process is supposed to work. The article raises two deeply troubling points: 1) That they operate without specific Judges orders - this means that they are pretty much Dragnets sweeping up vast swathes of information indiscriminately. 2) They are used to help in "disturbances" (by presumably recording Video & Cell info?). So even civil disobedience is prime target for these flights. The combination points to a major overreach by the Feds. The temptation to use all that info in one way or another (Parallel Construction for e.g.) is too great. Needs ACLU & possibly EFF to sue & the courts to shutdown this crap.
ohitsdom 11y ago
I feel like I'm not understanding the implications of this, because my reaction is "meh". Can't the FBI fly helicopters now without a warrant? What's different about this compared with past behavior? I guess I'd be more interested to learn what equipment they have on the planes, because that can greatly impact the work they are doing. I'm definitely concerned about drones taking over this work with better tech, but I feel like I should be up in arms about these flights and I'm not.
comrade1 11y ago
As mentioned in a previous thread on this topic - they don't have to register surveillance blimps, tethered or free-flying. Based on altitude I think.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  They do, they appeared on sectionals as obstacles https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/28/2010-27251/revocation-of-restricted-areas-r-3807-glencoe-la-and-r-6320-matagorda-tx https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/28/2010-272...
xacaxulu 11y ago
For your safety.
eruditely 11y ago
I think the realities of statecraft in the twenty-first century has made stuff like this to be impossible to do without, from what it seems like these agencies are not evil and they have merely had to evolve to the realities of this era. I do not like it nor enjoy it but it seems like Russian/Chinese intelligence have free reign in america whereas our agencies are under constant assault by the public and all other nations versus us. Sometimes I fear we are bringing down the state with out actions.
shmerl 11y ago
Watchbird[1] coming next? [1]. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579 See also https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-a...
whoisthemachine 11y ago
If you need to hide your surveillance behind fake companies, then you can probably surmise that it will not be met with public approval.
thoward 11y ago
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 FBI shouldn't need to hide this.
- jjwiseman 11y ago
  The FBI using front companies for aerial surveillance of suspects seems fine to me; That's just doing their job of criminal investigation. The worrying part is seeing their planes overhead for hours at a time, which looks more like potential persistent surveillance, or a dragnet that sweeps up hundreds or thousands of people into whatever video/cellphone recording they're doing.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > doing their job of criminal investigation That hasn't been the FBI's job for some time now. They joined the "intelligence community" club and now claim is now about "national security". http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/05/fbi-drops-law-enforcement-as-primary-mission/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/05/fbi-drops-law-enforcemen... So why is it necessary to fly spy planes domestically to protect "national security". That would imply we've already been invaded... or their purpose is something else entirely.
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      Having a primary function doesn't mean they don't have other functions as well, such as criminal investigations.
- godgod 11y ago
  hiding suggests illegal activities which the FBI doesnt want to admit to.
dsugarman 11y ago
This looks like the answer to a recent HN frontpage question https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504825
rasz_pl 11y ago
Are we sure its FBI and not some bigger 4 eyes operation? "Mystery Plane With No Callsign Circles South London For Hours": http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/mystery-plane-no-callsign_n_5608777.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/mystery-plane-no-...
sgnelson 11y ago
I might have missed it somewhere, but I'm curious as to what cities they were flying over. Does anyone have a link/list of the cities that the FBI has been flying over?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Lukeas14 11y ago
- the FBI’s planes “are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance” At least not wittingly.
morgante 11y ago
Honestly, unlike what the NSA is doing, this doesn't outrage me. Surveillance aircraft only see what is visible from the air—primarily public spaces. When I'm in a public space, I don't have any expectation of privacy. Heck, a single private citizen intent on tracking my every move could easily "surveil" me in this way. If the FBI is only exercising techniques which a private citizen could deploy, I really don't care. I fully expect that every minute I'm in public is being documented—it's spying on private communications which really outrages me.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  "Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they are not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers into coughing up basic subscriber information, is rare."
  - morgante 11y ago
    It appears that they do, however, get a warrant before collecting information via Stingrays.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Aggregation of data on thousands of people over an extended time has an entirely different quality to one person watching one place in public.
skidoo 11y ago
This isn't exactly new. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/government-planes-mimic-cellphone-towers-to-collect-user-data-report http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/government-plan...
- jjwiseman 11y ago
  Yes! There are even articles from 3013 about the FBI using small planes for aerial surveillance, including IMSI-catchers. I think the reason the story might be catching on now is because of the compelling nature of seeing screenshots of multiple circle tracks over multiple cities, and even seeing photos of the planes and their camera turrets.
tzs 11y ago
> Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc, which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns. The way they mentioned counter-clockwise orbits and then talk about FLIR's newsletter mentioning left-handed patterns seems to be trying to use the left/counter-clockwise aspects to connect the two. That seems rather a stretch. Pilots have better visibility to the left in most small planes, and so left turns are preferred. Also, propellers usually rotate clockwise, which causes some biases toward the left I believe, which may make it slightly easier to do left turns.
ck2 11y ago
If they actually had a warrant to look for some specific person or group of people I'd actually have no problem with this. Gangs, drug dealers, etc. The problem is as usual, they feel they are above any judicial review, even if they know they would just get a rubber stamp from a "go to" judge.

379 points by tchalla 11y ago

> "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 comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said. Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and duration of the surveillance. Given the duration and location of these aircraft, it's very hard to see how these aren't an illegal search, given the past few years of judicial rulings[2][3]. It's become very clear that collecting movement data, even if that movement data is public, requires a warrant. No wonder the FBI wants to keep a layer of fake companies between it and these planes. Also, if you do collect wide area data for a specific target, can you keep the wide area data for use later on for another purpose? I volunteer for an organization[4] that works with cities to adopt privacy policies regarding the data they collect, receive, and share. To date, our privacy policies have mostly been focused on disclosing how local offices are sharing local data (license plate readers, stingrays, etc.) with the feds, but now it seems we need to add sections about disclosing incoming data feeds from the feds. [1]: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not-law-enforcement http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012... [3]: https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-vargas https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-vargas [4]: http://www.restorethe4th.com/ http://www.restorethe4th.com/

stirno 11y ago
I think your last point about data retention is really the big question. Given the ever-growing use of Parallel Construction in making cases from illegally obtained data (or data authorized only for a different use), its not enough that all these policies be stopped -- we need to address how long they can keep the fruits of their labor.
dba7dba 11y ago
It seems that the FBI has really taken to heart the change in mission statement from "law enforcement" to "national security After 9/11, that's what people seemed to demand.
- dmix 11y ago
  That's not quite accurate, if you read the history of the FBI [1], they have been an intelligence agency as long as they've been a law enforcement one (pre-1950s, when it was called the Bureau of Investigation): http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812979230/ http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812... They pride themselves in the idea hardly no one in the American public is aware of this fact. 9/11 made them focus their intelligence abilities on terrorism but those capabilities were hardly new to the FBI.
rayiner 11y ago
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.
- shabble 11y ago
  Without knowing the details, it seems like they shouldn't really distil 'expectation of privacy' down a simple binary "could someone not breaking the law observe them or not" test. IMO, the efforts to which that hypothetical person would have to go should influence just how much privacy a person could 'expect' to have. Otherwise why do people bother putting up privacy fences around their garden, when anyone could just fly over? Or hoist a camera on a stick? The problem being that the more effort required to observe, the more confident an ordinary person could presume to be unobserved. When we have UAVs that can loiter around (in public airspace, of course) random buildings and bounce laser microphones off the windows, along with thermal imaging and gait detection of individuals at a price that is affordable by average people, would that change 'expectation of privacy'? As long as the tech is embargoed or ridicuously expensive, there's a distinct skew where the government can afford it and Joe Shmuck The Reasonable Individual can't. In fact, the mere ability to continuously loiter for extended periods and make recordings is probably beyond an individual who doesn't have refueling support or additional friends in similarly equipped craft to change watches. "If they could, then we can, will, and do"
  - armorsmith42 11y ago
    The Illustrated Guide to the Law has some discussion of this question here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2201 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2201
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Wow. That's great. This panel explains why there is no 4th amendment protection of information you store in the cloud: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210.

bediger4000 11y ago

How can an ordinary person tell if one of these spy planes is currently overhead? Is there some way to dink with them, similar to Matt Blaze's in-band signalling vulnerabilities discovery(s) (http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf) ? You know, use old phones that still have SIM cards, but have them try to register constantly? I'm a bit vague on cellphone protocol details, so spare me the nit picking, and get on with the revelations.

toufka 11y ago
from u/jjwiseman >DOJ/FBI surveillance aircraft often squawk 4414 or 4415 on their transponders. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812
- cinquemb 11y ago
  I think this is a great thing about HN. Through the noise of the donate links to this and that, others help propagate information how they are building tools that could help decrease the asymmetry of the landscape/ increase transparency surrounding these things in ways more grounded in realism. Hak5 had a couple episodes dealing with getting set up with SDR and such to be able to do this for yourself[0] that I didn't see covered in that thread which might be useful for others as well. [0] http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1525 http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1525
higherpurpose 11y ago
Probably by using something like: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoopsnitch https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.srlabs.snoo... https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.SecUpwN.AIMSICD https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=com.SecUpwN.AIMS... I wish this kind of "firewall" was included natively in the operating systems, though, even as an opt-in feature. It's time for OS vendors to do something about it, just like they did with local storage encryption (enabled out of the box, even).
- nosuchthing 11y ago

themartorana 11y ago

When it was imagined, we called it "distopian" - books were written and immortalized, movies were made, warnings were served. When it happened, there was barely a murmur.

denzil_correa 11y ago
> When it was imagined, we called it "distopian" I always though it was "dystopian" but your spelling made me check again. Apparently, "distopia" is used in some romance languages like Spanish - http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distop%C3%ADa http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distop%C3%ADa Portuguese - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia Italian - http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia
- themartorana 11y ago
  Neat. I didn't do that on purpose... I misspelled it, but I'll leave it since you have a neat point.
- walshemj 11y ago
  They are two related terms A dystopia is a particular society like Metropolis in the 30's Fritz lang film film. Dystopian is how you describe say ubiquitous CCTV cameras.
- juliangregorian 11y ago
  It's appropriate, too, as "dis" is Latin while "dys" is Greek.

deathhand 11y ago

>The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names – as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department – are listed on public documents and in government databases. Glad to see AP still has gumption.

shit_parade2 11y ago
If only that gumption extended to the US tax payer footing the bill to be spied upon.
- kenbellows 11y ago
  ... are you suggesting that the entire US population refuse to pay any taxes until surveillance issues are fixed? Because that's a terrible idea.
  - tertius 11y ago
    Stopping tax payments isn't the only way to protest.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      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 1433272217: If ISIS wants us to engage them, we just sit back and allow them to rape whole villages and sell women into the sex trade? You don't go to war for oil. You go to war for human rights and to prevent the slaughter and abuse of innocent people.

ninkendo 11y ago

Haven'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?

higherpurpose 11y ago
Because now they can spy on millions vs 1. I think that makes the difference.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- josefresco 11y ago
  What if the target (being monitored by said van) took off and "lost" the van in the sidestreets of US city? The FBI would be criticized for it's ineffective surveillance techniques. The plan is just an upgrade - the laws and controls (or lack thereof) are what is important - not so much the tech.
  - Retric 11y ago
    The FBI can easily follow one suspect, but it's an expensive provision. The issue is when you decrease the costs you can start following thousands of suspects for the same net cost so it takes a much lower standard of evidence to start. Suspect > suspect’s friend > friend of friend and you quickly hit the point where everyone is being watched. Worse large lists quickly become meaningless. Both the 9/11 hijackers and the Boston Marathon bombers where on a list, but that list was simply too large to be useful because 99.9% of everyone on those lists ended up doing nothing. Now consider something like a DNA database. With 100 million random people on it a 99.999% accurate test going to report a false positive every single time and most tests are nowhere near that accurate.
    - genericuser 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

happyscrappy 11y ago

Wait until HN learns about satellite surveillance.

josefresco 11y ago
FBI Agent on Foot: OK FBI Agent in a Van: OK FBI Agent in a Plane: Not OK I'm assuming an FBI agent in a satellite would be really not OK.
- ta0967 11y ago
  no, that would be A-OK. load everybody onto the ISS and send it to orbit around Uranus.
- cleaver 11y ago
  The key issues would be scale of the surveillance and warrants.
- discardorama 11y ago
  Strawman. The issue is not the presence of the pilot in the airplane; it's the presence of high-res cameras, StingRays, etc.
iyn 11y ago
Well, I'd read about this, it's pretty interesting. Do you know any good articles/videos/resources?
ohitsdom 11y ago
It's like plane surveillance- except it's in the air for decades at a time.

msane 11y ago

I 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 against either but technology will probably overpower the legislation quickly. So what is the impact of this sort of technology? Maybe it's not all George Orwell. Your bike was stolen on Third St at 1pm? Roll the video back or forwards to know exactly where the thief is. Someone shot up a nightclub and rushed out in a crowd? automated video analysis caught them. Yes it sounds scary if it were a monopolized power, but eventually I don't think government will be able to hold monopoly on it.

SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
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 tell your boss when you lie about being sick, I tell your insurance how often you do risky things when not driving, I tell your ex where she can find you at the club. This is the future you're presenting, and claiming that there's some upside. On the contrary, I think humans can't handle it, and are literally going to drive themselves insane with machines.
- msane 11y ago
  I sort of agree, but it just seems technology is going that way one way or the other. How could it be stopped? When/if that sort of tech happens culture would be very different to say the least.
- davnicwil 11y ago
  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 driving, I tell your ex where she can find you at the club. All of these things were possible 50 years ago. They are possible now. They will be possible in 50 years. 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. For the vast majority of people the motivation to do such things remains extremely low relative to the motivation to do other more interesting things. > 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. Again, this is not far off being trivial with today's technology. Yet you can't imagine (at least I can't) what benefit or pleasure anybody would get out of knowing such information about a person today. Therefore it's extremely unlikely anyone will care enough to do it - evidenced by the fact that practically nobody does. Why will this change in the future? Taken to the extreme, ask yourself even if you could retrieve this information about any given person instantly, for zero cost or effort, would you even care enough to do it? Are the things you could do with that information more exciting or interesting than what you were otherwise going to do today? For how many people is that answer going to be yes?

patrickg_zill 11y ago

It is amazing how prescient the movie "Enemy of the State" (with Will Smith, Gene Hackman) was. And how it holds up to a second viewing even today.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I recommend you watch Coppola's The Conversation as well, which is what originally inspired EotS. It's far more atmospheric and psychologically tense.
- rsync 11y ago
  Agreed - The Conversation is quite good.

jjwiseman 11y ago

I've written up my findings (almost 100 aircraft, 17 front companies) and how I reached them at https://storify.com/jjwiseman/tracking-fbi-aerial-surveillance https://storify.com/jjwiseman/tracking-fbi-aerial-surveillan...

jjwiseman 11y ago
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.
- god_bless_texas 11y ago
  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!
  - jjwiseman 11y ago
    Yes, I use dump1090 which can decode Mode S/ADS-B with or without location and Mode A/C.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- RyJones 11y ago
  almost like they weren't trying with that last point.
- upofadown 11y ago
  Since you can look up the aircraft based on the N number using the same transponder code doesn't really make much difference.

themeek 11y ago

A host of interviews and discussions in Washington such as the Holder interview on drone use in America and the legislation from the FAA on drones highly suggests that large drone systems (ARGUS) will be permanently placed in America's skys and that the use of predator drones on American citizens inside American borders deemed to be a threat to national security would be proper depending on official policy.

suprgeek 11y ago

Video/Cell surveillance with a Judges order by the FBI (a NON-FISA Judge - the FISA ones are Rubber Stamps) is how the process is supposed to work. The article raises two deeply troubling points: 1) That they operate without specific Judges orders - this means that they are pretty much Dragnets sweeping up vast swathes of information indiscriminately. 2) They are used to help in "disturbances" (by presumably recording Video & Cell info?). So even civil disobedience is prime target for these flights. The combination points to a major overreach by the Feds. The temptation to use all that info in one way or another (Parallel Construction for e.g.) is too great. Needs ACLU & possibly EFF to sue & the courts to shutdown this crap.

ohitsdom 11y ago

I feel like I'm not understanding the implications of this, because my reaction is "meh". Can't the FBI fly helicopters now without a warrant? What's different about this compared with past behavior? I guess I'd be more interested to learn what equipment they have on the planes, because that can greatly impact the work they are doing. I'm definitely concerned about drones taking over this work with better tech, but I feel like I should be up in arms about these flights and I'm not.

comrade1 11y ago

As mentioned in a previous thread on this topic - they don't have to register surveillance blimps, tethered or free-flying. Based on altitude I think.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
They do, they appeared on sectionals as obstacles https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/28/2010-27251/revocation-of-restricted-areas-r-3807-glencoe-la-and-r-6320-matagorda-tx https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/28/2010-272...

xacaxulu 11y ago

For your safety.

eruditely 11y ago

I think the realities of statecraft in the twenty-first century has made stuff like this to be impossible to do without, from what it seems like these agencies are not evil and they have merely had to evolve to the realities of this era. I do not like it nor enjoy it but it seems like Russian/Chinese intelligence have free reign in america whereas our agencies are under constant assault by the public and all other nations versus us. Sometimes I fear we are bringing down the state with out actions.

shmerl 11y ago

Watchbird[1] coming next? [1]. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579 See also https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-nypd.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-a...

whoisthemachine 11y ago

If you need to hide your surveillance behind fake companies, then you can probably surmise that it will not be met with public approval.

thoward 11y ago

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 FBI shouldn't need to hide this.

jjwiseman 11y ago
The FBI using front companies for aerial surveillance of suspects seems fine to me; That's just doing their job of criminal investigation. The worrying part is seeing their planes overhead for hours at a time, which looks more like potential persistent surveillance, or a dragnet that sweeps up hundreds or thousands of people into whatever video/cellphone recording they're doing.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > doing their job of criminal investigation That hasn't been the FBI's job for some time now. They joined the "intelligence community" club and now claim is now about "national security". http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/05/fbi-drops-law-enforcement-as-primary-mission/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/05/fbi-drops-law-enforcemen... So why is it necessary to fly spy planes domestically to protect "national security". That would imply we've already been invaded... or their purpose is something else entirely.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Having a primary function doesn't mean they don't have other functions as well, such as criminal investigations.
godgod 11y ago
hiding suggests illegal activities which the FBI doesnt want to admit to.

dsugarman 11y ago

This looks like the answer to a recent HN frontpage question https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504825

rasz_pl 11y ago

Are we sure its FBI and not some bigger 4 eyes operation? "Mystery Plane With No Callsign Circles South London For Hours": http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/mystery-plane-no-callsign_n_5608777.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/mystery-plane-no-...

sgnelson 11y ago

I might have missed it somewhere, but I'm curious as to what cities they were flying over. Does anyone have a link/list of the cities that the FBI has been flying over?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Lukeas14 11y ago

- the FBI’s planes “are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance” At least not wittingly.

morgante 11y ago

Honestly, unlike what the NSA is doing, this doesn't outrage me. Surveillance aircraft only see what is visible from the air—primarily public spaces. When I'm in a public space, I don't have any expectation of privacy. Heck, a single private citizen intent on tracking my every move could easily "surveil" me in this way. If the FBI is only exercising techniques which a private citizen could deploy, I really don't care. I fully expect that every minute I'm in public is being documented—it's spying on private communications which really outrages me.

ojbyrne 11y ago
"Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they are not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers into coughing up basic subscriber information, is rare."
- morgante 11y ago
  It appears that they do, however, get a warrant before collecting information via Stingrays.
nitrogen 11y ago
Aggregation of data on thousands of people over an extended time has an entirely different quality to one person watching one place in public.

skidoo 11y ago

This isn't exactly new. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/government-planes-mimic-cellphone-towers-to-collect-user-data-report http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/government-plan...

jjwiseman 11y ago
Yes! There are even articles from 3013 about the FBI using small planes for aerial surveillance, including IMSI-catchers. I think the reason the story might be catching on now is because of the compelling nature of seeing screenshots of multiple circle tracks over multiple cities, and even seeing photos of the planes and their camera turrets.

tzs 11y ago

> Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003 newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc, which makes camera technology such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns. The way they mentioned counter-clockwise orbits and then talk about FLIR's newsletter mentioning left-handed patterns seems to be trying to use the left/counter-clockwise aspects to connect the two. That seems rather a stretch. Pilots have better visibility to the left in most small planes, and so left turns are preferred. Also, propellers usually rotate clockwise, which causes some biases toward the left I believe, which may make it slightly easier to do left turns.

ck2 11y ago

If they actually had a warrant to look for some specific person or group of people I'd actually have no problem with this. Gangs, drug dealers, etc. The problem is as usual, they feel they are above any judicial review, even if they know they would just get a rubber stamp from a "go to" judge.