Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

"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

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

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

well, the only part that seemed at all paranoid was this paragraph
"Privacy advocates wonder how much the agency picks up - and stores. Many
are increasingly skeptical of intelligence agencies with recent revelations
about the Bush administration's surveillance on phone calls and e-mails."
Which I think is quite reasonable. For example, if there is a subject under
surveillance, the NGA could determine when someone visited the subject, and
when the subject wasn't at home. (Assuming that the person parked outside.)
Combined with the NSA traffic analysis of phone calls, and motor vehicle
records, one might be able to determine who the visitor was, (or at least
might be.) Hell of a waste of resources though -- probably cheaper and more
accurate just to get someone to go there.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
No, the technical term is "settled law."

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.

My understanding is that the NSA does not have the authority to make the
above request, but local police and the FBI do.

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

Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
are in power ???

Or is it just a symptom of American politics ??

Or do they have to carry out observations to keep an eye on the
numbers of internal terrorists in the US ???

In sci.space.policy wrote:
O-BORG, have you no shame? Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
back-engineering of ET craft, are rather sad. I guess at the end of
the day when you count the millions you (and many others) have
ripped-off from hard-working Americans, you can live with the loss of
your soul. This is why the American Empire will probably no longer
exist, because of greed-heads cannot contain themselves.


This is a classic. Where do these people come from?
(The post was so short and intense that I felt it was worth
quoting it in entirety.)

"jonathan" wrote in message
...
But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA.

What makes you think there was no explanation?

Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
obey your noodly master a bit better.