4 ms·

> "Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground teams,

by 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.

by diafygi 11y ago

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.