Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

In article om,
george wrote:
How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
are in power ???

Plenty. It's a bipartisan issue, much though Republicans would like to
think otherwise.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Kevin Willoughby wrote:

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

And just what is being 'searched'?

Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
of the FISA rules for national security searches.

I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
before you can collect on them. That means you can't just trawl through
a database of call records looking for interesting connections. If they
were asking for people who connected with specific known terrorist
numbers, that would probably pass the test. Non-specific record checks
are fishing expeditions, which do not pass the 5240.1 standards for
collection.

--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
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.

Yes.

And so? Do you think that the Supreme Court hasn't read the
Constitution? It certainly wasn't as clear to them as it seems to be to
you.

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.

And just what is being 'searched'?

If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance -- I haven't
been following the ins and outs of this thread closely -- I believe the
Supreme Court held some years ago that virtually any form of technological
surveillance more capable than (legal) naked-eye observation *does*
constitute "search" and requires a warrant.

(The rationale, which made considerable sense, was that otherwise there
was no telling what invasions of privacy would become legal as high-tech
surveillance gear got better. There's already experimental gear that can
"see" through some kinds of walls.)


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/legal/remote4.html


"In 1986, the Supreme Court decided the case of Dow Chemical v. United
States, by and through the Administrator, Environmental Agency, 476 U.S.
227, 106 S. Ct. 1819, 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 (May 19, 1986).

....

The court then tackled Dow's Fourth amendment arguments. In a 5-4
decision, the court held that the taking of aerial photography without a
warrant was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Dow argued
that the taking of the photos was akin to snooping into the "curtilage"
of a private home, which is granted protection as a place where
occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is
willing to accept. The court rejected the industrial curtilage argument,
finding that the unenclosed commercial area is more like an "open
field." What is observable by the public is also observable by the
Government inspector, without a warrant. "


There are a lot of other cases mentioned later in that article.

"The latest reported judicial decision in the circuit courts on thermal
imaging is the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Kyllo, 140 F. 3rd
1249 (9th Cir. 1998). The court in Kyllo found an expectation of privacy
that was protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected the waste
heat analogy, but embraced the notion that people possess an expectation
of privacy in the heat signatures of the activities, intimate or
otherwise, that they pursue within the home. "

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
::Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
::searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:
:And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance -- I haven't
:been following the ins and outs of this thread closely -- I believe the
:Supreme Court held some years ago that virtually any form of technological
:surveillance more capable than (legal) naked-eye observation *does*
:constitute "search" and requires a warrant.

But observing things that are (essentially) in the open requires no
warrant at all.

The rationale, which made considerable sense, was that otherwise there
:was no telling what invasions of privacy would become legal as high-tech
:surveillance gear got better. There's already experimental gear that can
:"see" through some kinds of walls.)

The court decisions on this sort of thing are decidedly mixed. The
9th tends to find that everything the authorities do is illegal. Other
courts find the other way.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:

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

And just what is being 'searched'?


If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance

No, the whining is about looking for patterns in phone calls from
records that the phone companies (funny, leftists usually trust the
government more than those evil corporations) routinely collect.

Thomas Schoene wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Kevin Willoughby wrote:
:
: :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
: :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:
: And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you.

Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
not the only form of rights involved.

WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
information.

Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
its ability to ruin your life is greater. It's quite legal for your
employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
subject to the same rules.)

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?

It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
while the net is still largely in legal no-man's-land. While it might
seem reasonable that analogous rules should apply, that is not yet an
established legal principle. And if and when it becomes one, the result
is likely to be more privacy for the net, not less privacy for phones.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"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.


I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke Cunningham
bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
Alias. "SHE" is my only master~


s

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
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'.



That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
accountable to the public, their policies are public and
established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
processes.

It's through all those open and democratic processes of
oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
taking place and change/punish when it has. With
secret agencies we cannot do any of that.


The President has yet to clearly state under what law
the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.

To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
great big policing machine?

Congress has always been clear they wish the two
to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
branch of govt gets to decide.


Jonathan

s






"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