Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

In article , Pat Flannery
wrote:

Jim Oberg wrote:

Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.

Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
Carpathian.

I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
cave.)

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Jim Oberg wrote:

Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

Just like you? Sex offenders, they are everywhere!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

Yes Jim, we will track down those pathetic NASA artwork copyright
offenders in their pathetic caves, and root them out, and incarcerate
them in detention camps without legal recourse. We cannot let NASA
copyright violations go on, NASA artwork is far too valuable for that.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Imagine a google maps like live image of earth, with the ability to
track things backward to any point in time.

The movements of Laci Petersen's killer if tracked by satellite would
be welcomed by police - as would similar evidence if it were available
to jilted lovers and cheated on wives the world over.

But is such a system possible?

Can a satellite network be imagined that provides a real time image of
the Earth down to cm or less resolution all the time?

Probably not.

To support the cost, you'd likely have to pair it with another service,
like communication. A network of 100 or so sun-synchronous polar
orbiting satellites that provided teledesic like communcations with
earth, and communicated with their nearest neighbor via open optical
laser at 20 Terabits/sec - would provide global wireless communication.
The same service could offer a terrestrial observation service to the
users of the communication system.

The software would have safeguards to restrict access to delineated
regions like military bases and so forth.

When outfitted with an appropriate set of cameras on each satellite,
they could provide nearly continuous coverage of the entire Earth's
surface from orbit. But it would be meter resolution or more.

Cm resolution will require knowing where to look in advance of getting
the data. This affords tremendous protection.

A square cm resolution live capability of the entire Earth's surface -
updated every second, would require 5.09e18 pixels per second. This is
5e16 pixels per second per satellite - which is 10,000 times faster
than the communication rate allows - which means that we're limited
even with this array to meter scale resolution on a regular basis.

10 HDTV cameras trained on the Earth from orbit on each of the 100
satellites, would produce something like 20 million pixels per second,
30 times per second or so - so we're talking 600 million pixels per
second - 6e8 - which is about 10e-8 the rate needed. That's 10e4 cm -
or 100 m resolution. for live full time coverage.

To store 100 years worth of images at 1 cm resolution (assuming you'd
have a camera sufficient to the task on board) would require 1.58e28
pixels of storage. Assuming each pixel is 24 bits, that's 3.79e29 bits
Since 6.02e23 atoms equal a gram mole of them, we can conclude that if
100 amu of molecules are needed per bit (see recent patents below)
you'd need 50,000,000 grams of materials - a half tonne per satellite
of recording apparatus - or 50 kg per decade! - which surprisingly is
doable for decades or less.

So, even if we have some sort of super duper camera system that's
millions of times more capable than HDTV cameras, we can't get live cm
scale pictures from orbit at less than 20 terabits per second, unless
and until we know where to look. We could store lots of images on the
satellites, but we'd need to know where to look in the data set to pull
out high-res images of what we're interested in from the vast pool of
data.

So, cops would have to have evidence of a crime and other tangible
evidence before they could access the right data store, in the
quintillions of megabytes of data stored up. So, we're safe from idle
intrusion - by the vast amount of data that has to be sifted through in
order to get the right data in the right hands to be of concern.

* * * *

United States Patent 6,943,417
Boland , et al. September 13, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA-based memory device and method of reading and writing same


Abstract
The present invention is directed to a memory device having very high
storage density capability. In general, the memory device includes an
array of individual memory cells which store information that is
assigned a value based on the molecular contents of the memory cell. In
a preferred embodiment, the molecules utilized for storing information
in the memory cells may be single-strand polynucleotides, for instance
single-strand oligonucleotides of between about 5 and about 20 monomer
units. The present invention is also directed to methods and systems
useful for writing and reading the molecular-based memory devices. In
particular, the devices may be written and read via modified atomic
force microscopy processes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Patent 6,719,602
Nakayama , et al. April 13, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanotube length control method


Abstract
A nanotube length control method involving a nanotube and a discharge
needle so that the nanotube with its base end portion fastened to a
holder and its tip end portion caused to protrude is set so as for its
tip end to face the tip end of the discharge needle. A voltage is
applied across the nanotube and the discharge needle so that an
electrical discharge is caused to occur between the tip end of the
nanotube and the tip end of the discharge needle, thus cutting down the
tip end of the nanotube by this discharge, and it is possible to
control the length of the tip end portion of the nanotube.

United States Patent 6,705,154
Nakayama , et al. March 16, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cantilever for vertical scanning microscope and probe for vertical scan
microscope


Abstract
A cantilever for a vertical scanning type microscope that obtains
substance information of a surface of a specimen by a tip end of a
nanotube probe needle fastened to the cantilever, in which the
cantilever has a fixing region to which a base end portion of a
nanotube serving as a probe needle is fastened, and a height direction
of the fixing region is set to be substantially perpendicular to a mean
surface of the specimen when the cantilever is disposed in a measuring
state with respect to the mean surface of the specimen; and the base
end portion of the nanotube is bonded in the height direction of the
fixing region.

United States Patent 6,519,221
Manalis , et al. February 11, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-density data storage using atomic force microscope


Abstract
An atomic force microscope (AFM) tipped with a single-wall conductive
nanotube is operated to write bits onto a metal substrate by oxidizing
the surface. The oxidized microregions project above an otherwise flat
surface, and can therefore be detected--that is, the written bits can
be read--using the same AFM arrangement.

why the hell does this surprise anyone?

All western democracies have greater threats internally than externally.
Because they are democracies they are not supposed to spy on citizens.

So they get other trusted parties to do it (ala Echelon)
The canucks spy on the yanks, the yanks spy on the canucks
The kiwis spy on the ozzies and the ozzies spy on the kiwis
The poms spy on everyone, and everyone spies on the poms

Now that america trusts no-one, and with the pat riot act, they spy
on each other. The spy agencies that is. On each other.
Some are so secret that a fellow had to spy on himself, and he
didn't even realise it. He didn't even know he was a spy!

Somewhere, an evilgrin glints inside a cave.

David M. Palmer wrote:

In article , Pat Flannery
wrote:



Jim Oberg wrote:



Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html


This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.



Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
Carpathian.

I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
cave.)

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)


No, the technical term is "settled law."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735

SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central
offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone
at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to
suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial
court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of
the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was
convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.
Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the
person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of
privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry
normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has
exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second,
whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
"reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that
telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the
numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone
numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for
recording this information and does in fact record it for various
legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an
expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some
other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the
contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the
privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor
some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one
that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner
voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and
"exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of
business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the
information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v.
Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
---

In other words: this is not what the media is trying to make it out to
be. Surprise, surprise, surprise.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

BlagooBlanaa wrote:

why the hell does this surprise anyone?


It shouldn't. The US Supreme Court rules this sort of thing perfectly
legal back in 1979.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
David M. Palmer wrote:

In article , Pat Flannery
wrote:



Jim Oberg wrote:



Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html


This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.



Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
Carpathian.

I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
cave.)

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)


No, the technical term is "settled law."


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735

SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.



The police were not doing the surveillance, it was the NSA
while gathering foreign intelligence regarding terrorism.
The law is clear that US persons are not to be watched by
agencies meant for foreign intelligence, such as the NSA.
A US business is considered a US person.
And the NSA has been doing more than just monitoring
phone numbers, but tapping the lines under FISA temporary
authorization.



NSA Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00020.cfm

What do you mean by production of foreign intelligence information?

NSA/CSS's Signal Intelligence mission is to intercept and analyze foreign
adversaries' communications signals, many of which are protected by codes
and other complex countermeasures. We collect, process, and disseminate
intelligence reports on foreign intelligence targets in response to
intelligence requirements set at the highest levels of government.

Executive Order 12333 authorizes agencies of the intelligence community to
produce foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence consistent with
applicable U.S. law and with full consideration of the rights of United
States persons. The Order defines "foreign intelligence" and
"counterintelligence" as follows:

Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities,
intentions, and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons.

Counterintelligence means information gathered and activities conducted to
protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or
assassinations conducted for or on international terrorist groups or
activities.

Return to top

Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of
foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to
preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from
unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or
agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

Return to top

I believe that as a U.S. person I am not targeted in the United States. What
happens when I travel abroad?

U.S. persons traveling abroad are still covered by the same rules,
regulations, and oversight procedures.

Return to top

Who is considered a U.S. Person?

Federal law and executive order define a U.S. Person as:

a citizen of the United States
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are
citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence
a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.



TITLE 50 CHAPTER 36

CHAPTER 36-FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE


§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order;
certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees;
transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common
carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney
General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under
this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means
of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as
defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and
exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1),

(2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire
the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a
party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance
meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of
this title; and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html





The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central
offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone
at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to
suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial
court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of
the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was
convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.
Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the
person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of
privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry
normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has
exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second,
whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
"reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that
telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the
numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone
numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for
recording this information and does in fact record it for various
legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an
expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some
other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the
contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the
privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor
some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one
that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner
voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and
"exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of
business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the
information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v.
Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
---

In other words: this is not what the media is trying to make it out to
be. Surprise, surprise, surprise.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.

As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.



"jonathan" wrote


And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
role of his agency in the article.

"the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."

That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
changed, again in the directors own words.


"The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
supports
these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
Strategic
Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
Guidance."

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to date."



Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
did whatever they pleased.

And the public is just now beggining to find out.



NGA homepage
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01...ront_door=true

NGA history
http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

The NSG Mission
http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/St...gic_intent.pdf



Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! grin


You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
and hence the truth.

I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?


s

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

: Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
: quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
: her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
: what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.


: Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
: have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
: that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
: America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
: really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
: one in the movies." That's good enough for most
: talk shows! grin


Yep, Hollywood is your Big Brother, right Jim "Winston Smith" Oberg?

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: jonathan wrote:

: I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
: rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
: explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
: surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
: his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
: at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.
:
: I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
: this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
: payback. loks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
: bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
: Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
: complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
: in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

: Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
: Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
: of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
: people who are trying to kill or convert us.

Rand, you understand that the White House and the CIA are both part of the
Executive Branch of the government, right? Your description above sounds
much more like the post Eisenhower White House that Kennedy inherited vs.
the CIA of that era rather than what exists today. Sure pockets of people
not going along with the neocon agenda of war for profit undoubtedly exist
in the CIA (thank God for that!). But to claim an actual wedge exists
between the Bush White House and the current CIA ignores that fact that
since Ford administration the neocons have had a chance to shape the CIA
in the image they wanted save 8 years during Clinton. Perhaps that little
faction is making a stand? (As well they should!)

: If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
: is going to leak it.

: There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
: the Constitution.

Yet. We'll have to wait and see what becomes of the Libby and Abramoff
indictments.

Do you always take the Mossad positions on everything political? C'mon say
something critical of Mossad, I dare you!

Eric