Should The US Government Have The Right To Spy On Their Own Citizens?

[newtogolf]

It was reported today that the FBI had formed numerous fake corporations and purchased airplanes for the sole purpose of collecting video, photos and cell phone ids in US cities throughout the country.  When the AP confronted the FBI about it, they acknowledged such practices did occur and requested that the AP not publish the business names so to save tax payers money from having to go out and form new fake corporations to fly their planes under.  Here is the content of the article.

Quote:

Washington (CNN) The FBI uses a fleet of planes registered under fictitious companies in order to conduct warrantless surveillance during federal, state and local investigations. The surveillance is conducted without a court order, but with oversight from within the Department of Justice, according to a senior law enforcement official.

Aerial surveillance by the FBI is nothing new, but a review by the Associated Press published this week reported that the scale of the fleet is larger than previously known and the planes are registered in a way to mask that they are owned by the FBI.

The agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states over a 30 day period, according to the AP review, and their report also said planes was masked by the existence of at least 13 fictitious companies.

The Department of Justice Inspector General published an oversight report on the FBI's aviation operations in 2012, but it was heavily redacted. Specific information on the size of the fleet, its cost and how often it was used were blacked out in the public version of the report.

In a statement, FBI spokesperson Christopher Allen said the bureau's aviation unit is no secret and described the secrecy as "protected for operational security purposes."

"FBI routinely uses aviation assets in support of predicated investigations targeting specific individuals. The aircraft are not equipped, designed, or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance. The FBI uses all tools and equipment, and conducts all investigations, in accordance with the Attorney General Guidelines and the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide.

The senior law enforcement official confirmed the existence of the fleet of planes to the CNN and said they are registered under fictitious companies because the FBI wants to be as discreet as possible.

"Anytime you mask your activity for operational or safety reasons you use a front company," said the official. "You don't want to put people on to what you're doing — we know we're going to need air aviation support for cases."

The planes, which are equipped for electronic surveillance, are used both for FBI investigations and also at the request of state and local officials, according to the FBI. During recent Baltimore riots, for instance, the FBI used the surveillance aircraft at the request of the Baltimore Police Department. The aircraft were also used during the search for disappeared California teenager Hannah Anderson in 2013.

The FBI released video of Anderson's rescue that was captured from a surveillance plane.  The FBI has also previously acknowledged using drones for domestic surveillance.

According to the senior law enforcement official, the FBI does not need a court issued warrant to fly these surveillance planes because of rules established by the Department of Justice. The same official says that before a plane is used, it is signed off on by various levels of DOJ.  The law enforcement official says if someone knew a plane belonged to the FBI it would easily compromise the investigative utility of plane and it would leave those planes vulnerable to sabotage. It's a safety issue for the pilots, according to the official.  "The fact that FBI has aviation assets has never been a secret," according to the official. "We don't publicize it for obvious reasons you don't want to draw attention to tools you use in the investigation. The official said that while there is no judge involved in the process, there is "rigorous oversight and approval" before the surveillance flights are used.

While I'm all for stopping terrorist threats I'm amazed that these practices along with the NSA activities revealed by Snowden have gone relatively unchecked by the media and general population.  It appears at this point we are under equal or great scrutiny from our government than non democracies throughout the world except that we live under the guise of being free.

[boogielicious]

I believe in the due process of law.  That being said, many of the things the FBI and NSA are doing were allowed by legislation.  So they were not illegal.  Although, I am sure they crossed the line at times.  It is quite a dilemma similar to martial law or CDC quarantine and even the polarizing subject of police excess use of force.

I voted sometimes and would emphasize "warrants".  I think they need to legally justify it.

[jamo]

I believe in the due process of law.  That being said, many of the things the FBI and NSA are doing were allowed by legislation.  So they were not illegal.  Although, I am sure they crossed the line at times.  It is quite a dilemma similar to martial law or CDC quarantine and even the polarizing subject of police excess use of force.

The point of that recent federal court decision was that the NSA dragnet metadata collection was in fact not allowed by legislation (specifically, the PATRIOT Act).

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I believe in the due process of law.  That being said, many of the things the FBI and NSA are doing were allowed by legislation.  So they were not illegal.  Although, I am sure they crossed the line at times.  It is quite a dilemma similar to martial law or CDC quarantine and even the polarizing subject of police excess use of force.

The point of that recent federal court decision was that the NSA dragnet metadata collection was in fact not allowed by legislation (specifically, the PATRIOT Act).

Hence, "crossed the line at times".  Governments have always pushed the legal boundary, ours included.  So have our civilians.  Think about all the data collection that private industry gets from everything you do.  We accept it to a point.  I mean I clicked on the Mac Weldon underwear ad once, ONCE!  And now the ads follow me around like a stalker!.

[jamo]

I mean I clicked on the Mac Weldon underwear ad once, ONCE!  And now the ads follow me around like a stalker!. :-P

Uh oh, he's onto us! ;-)

[Lihu]

They are even flying quadcopters over our neighborhood to check water usage. . .

I voted the first item.

[Jeremie Boop]

I don't really have a problem with it in general because it's not like they are snatching up people all over the place for minor things. They are using these methods to try to catch terrorists or people of the most nefarious sort. These are the type of people who you aren't going to catch by conventional means.

[imsys0042]

[Lihu]

So, we get to see a few more people scratching their armpits. . .

[Ernest Jones]

[URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/123312/] [/URL] So, we get to see a few more people scratching their armpits. . .

Ha ha. Man I miss Bloom County.

[RandallT]

At a minimum, we citizens should be aware of whatever legislation authorized this, what limits there are around it, and what freedom of information requests we can get from them surrounding it all. While there is a chance that it is all done with strict controls and only used to "get the bad guys," this country was founded on principles that keep one eye on making sure that the central government itself doesn't transform itself into the oppressor.

The checks and balances need to be in place, and without shining a spotlight on the program and getting the information on the scope and limits of the program, we really have no idea how arrogant those who use this program would become.  Geez, I'm sounding like Rand Paul. I have a libertarian bent, but not quite the hard-liner like him.

Some interesting info here (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/fbi-should-come-clean-on-surveillance-aircraft.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm;_medium=feed&utm;_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29)

Here in the Twin Cities, it started when a man described as an aviation buff noticed a small airplane acting oddly. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on May 29:

Aviation buff John Zimmerman was at a weekly gathering of neighbors Friday night when he noticed something peculiar: a small plane circling a route overhead that didn’t make sense to him.

It was dark, so a sightseeing flight didn’t make sense, and when Zimmerman pulled up more information on an aviation phone app he routinely checks, he had immediate concerns.

The plane’s flight path, recorded by the website flightradar24.com, would eventually show that it circled downtown Minneapolis, the Mall of America and Southdale Center at low altitude for hours starting at 10:30 p.m., slipping off radar just after 3 a.m.

Between Mr. Zimmerman and the paper’s reporters, quite a bit of information came to light:

Similar flights have since been spotted near Chicago, Boston and in California, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has filed several Freedom of Information Act requests for more information.

It believes the planes use cameras and infrared imaging technology to photograph people and vehicles in a broad swath of the city; technology to sweep up cellphone data from a plane also exists, but it’s not clear if the FBI flights use it.

A spokesman for the Twin Cities FBI office had no comment on the recent flight, saying he couldn’t speak to an “operational matter.” He declined to say if the plane belongs to the FBI or if it was acting at the request of a local law enforcement agency.

Today the Associated Press produced an admirable piece of reporting: “AP Exclusive: FBI behind mysterious fleet of aircraft conducting surveillance over US cities.”

The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.

The planes’ surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge’s approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. The FBI said it uses front companies to protect the safety of the pilots and aircraft. It also shields the identity of the aircraft so that suspects on the ground don’t know they’re being watched by the FBI. …

During the past few weeks, the AP tracked planes from the FBI’s fleet on more than 100 flights over at least 11 states plus the District of Columbia, most with Cessna 182T Skylane aircraft. These included parts of Houston, Phoenix, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis and Southern California.

It turns out that fragmentary information about the FBI’s aerial surveillance program has been in the public domain for a while. The agency confirmed that it uses fictitious companies (and, it appears, people) to register the airplanes:

At least 13 front companies that AP identified being actively used by the FBI are registered to post office boxes in Bristow, Virginia, which is near a regional airport used for private and charter flights. Only one of them appears in state business records.

Included on most aircraft registrations is a mysterious name, Robert Lindley. He is listed as chief executive and has at least three distinct signatures among the companies. Two documents include a signature for Robert Taylor, which is strikingly similar to one of Lindley’s three handwriting patterns.

The FBI would not say whether Lindley is a U.S. government employee.

The nature of the surveillance conducted by the FBI’s aircraft is a bit puzzling:

Evolving technology can record higher-quality video from long distances, even at night, and can capture certain identifying information from cellphones using a device known as a “cell-site simulator” — or Stingray, to use one of the product’s brand names. These can trick pinpointed cellphones into revealing identification numbers of subscribers, including those not suspected of a crime.

Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare….

Can an airplane a mile in the air really obtain video footage, at night, that is superior to what is constantly recorded by security cameras on the ground? And what triggers aerial surveillance? It seems to be frequent and widespread, but not constant. It is hard to believe that there is much value in random aerial footage of Minneapolis at night. So are the flights triggered by intelligence about possible criminal or terrorist activity?

As for cell phones, the FBI says it has “recently” begun getting court orders when it wants to locate a person by “tricking” his cell phone. If this activity isn’t plainly covered by the 4th Amendment, it should be.

Is any of this sinister? Probably not at present, but it has the potential to become sinister quickly.

[newtogolf]

What the FBI is doing amounts to mass surveillance and the same is true with NSA.  They are using large nets and then they process the data to determine if there's anything worth looking into deeper.  I'm also a bit bothered that our own government feels the need to create dummy corporations to hide these operations from the public, seems shows like 24 weren't that far off from reality.

[k-troop]

Aerial surveillance isn't any more "mass surveillance" or "spying on US citizens" than street-level surveillance.  If an investigation needs to confirm specific behavior, patterns of life, personal contacts, etc., they watch.  The obviously will see a ton of stuff that's irrelevant to the investigation--normal Americans doing normal American things.  That's not spying, and you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy walking into Starbucks.

Bulk data collection is obviously different.  Essentially, the USSCt draws a line between things you can see/hear, and things that you need special equipment to see hear.  Zoom cameras and night-vision capability don't necessarily violate any REOP.  If I could see/hear your activities/conversation from the street next to your house, business, car on a public street, etc., then I can record the same activities/conversation from a remote location--even the air.  Use of technological enhancements that allow the FBI to capture information that a live agent couldn't get from a place he would be otherwise allowed to be will violate the Fourth Amendment in most cases.

There is also a significant difference in collection as part of a criminal investigation and collection for intelligence purposes.  The distinction may not make a difference to most Americans, but the two are very different and covered by different rules.  The FBI conducts criminal investigations.  The NSA/CIA collect intelligence.

The FBI does, btw, regulate these activities with internal procedures.  They do so anytime an investigative technique, practice, or capability approaches a constitutional line.  I'm sure there is marginal abuse, but the internal procedures are rigorous in some cases.  I personally was involved in an espionage investigation which resulted in me being lead counsel on a prosecution under the Espionage Acts.  During the investigation the agents wanted to get a FISA warrant.  Without describing the procedures in detail, I'll just say that the FBI/DoJ doesn't take FISA applications lightly.  I spent in excess of 25 hours in meetings, VTCs, etc. related to the application for a single warrant...and "they" never even submitted the application.  That process was just to convince the folks at DoJ who apply for the warrants on behalf of Field Offices that the warrant was necessary and justified.

[RandallT]

Aerial surveillance isn't any more "mass surveillance" or "spying on US citizens" than street-level surveillance.  If an investigation needs to confirm specific behavior, patterns of life, personal contacts, etc., they watch.  The obviously will see a ton of stuff that's irrelevant to the investigation--normal Americans doing normal American things.  That's not spying, and you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy walking into Starbucks.   Bulk data collection is obviously different.  Essentially, the USSCt draws a line between things you can see/hear, and things that you need special equipment to see hear.  Zoom cameras and night-vision capability don't necessarily violate any REOP.  If I could see/hear your activities/conversation from the street next to your house, business, car on a public street, etc., then I can record the same activities/conversation from a remote location--even the air.  Use of technological enhancements that allow the FBI to capture information that a live agent couldn't get from a place he would be otherwise allowed to be will violate the Fourth Amendment in most cases. There is also a significant difference in collection as part of a criminal investigation and collection for intelligence purposes.  The distinction may not make a difference to most Americans, but the two are very different and covered by different rules.  The FBI conducts criminal investigations.  The NSA/CIA collect intelligence. The FBI does, btw, regulate these activities with internal procedures.  They do so anytime an investigative technique, practice, or capability approaches a constitutional line.  I'm sure there is marginal abuse, but the internal procedures are rigorous in some cases.  I personally was involved in an espionage investigation which resulted in me being lead counsel on a prosecution under the Espionage Acts.  During the investigation the agents wanted to get a FISA warrant.  Without describing the procedures in detail, I'll just say that the FBI/DoJ doesn't take FISA applications lightly.  I spent in excess of 25 hours in meetings, VTCs, etc. related to the application for a single warrant...and "they" never even submitted the application.  That process was just to convince the folks at DoJ who apply for the warrants on behalf of Field Offices that the warrant was necessary and justified.

Very helpful. Thanks for the insight!!!!

[newtogolf]

Aerial surveillance isn't any more "mass surveillance" or "spying on US citizens" than street-level surveillance.  If an investigation needs to confirm specific behavior, patterns of life, personal contacts, etc., they watch.  The obviously will see a ton of stuff that's irrelevant to the investigation--normal Americans doing normal American things.  That's not spying, and you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy walking into Starbucks.

Bulk data collection is obviously different.  Essentially, the USSCt draws a line between things you can see/hear, and things that you need special equipment to see hear.  Zoom cameras and night-vision capability don't necessarily violate any REOP.  If I could see/hear your activities/conversation from the street next to your house, business, car on a public street, etc., then I can record the same activities/conversation from a remote location--even the air.  Use of technological enhancements that allow the FBI to capture information that a live agent couldn't get from a place he would be otherwise allowed to be will violate the Fourth Amendment in most cases.

There is also a significant difference in collection as part of a criminal investigation and collection for intelligence purposes.  The distinction may not make a difference to most Americans, but the two are very different and covered by different rules.  The FBI conducts criminal investigations.  The NSA/CIA collect intelligence.

The FBI does, btw, regulate these activities with internal procedures.  They do so anytime an investigative technique, practice, or capability approaches a constitutional line.  I'm sure there is marginal abuse, but the internal procedures are rigorous in some cases.  I personally was involved in an espionage investigation which resulted in me being lead counsel on a prosecution under the Espionage Acts.  During the investigation the agents wanted to get a FISA warrant.  Without describing the procedures in detail, I'll just say that the FBI/DoJ doesn't take FISA applications lightly.  I spent in excess of 25 hours in meetings, VTCs, etc. related to the application for a single warrant...and "they" never even submitted the application.  That process was just to convince the folks at DoJ who apply for the warrants on behalf of Field Offices that the warrant was necessary and justified.

When you are using cameras on the ground or in aircraft to capture cell phone id's and video footage of the general public you are spying on US citizens.  None of the data collected is done so under a warrant and there's no proof that the data on non persons of interest is ever discarded.

[Golfingdad]

Aerial surveillance isn't any more "mass surveillance" or "spying on US citizens" than street-level surveillance.  If an investigation needs to confirm specific behavior, patterns of life, personal contacts, etc., they watch.  The obviously will see a ton of stuff that's irrelevant to the investigation--normal Americans doing normal American things.  That's not spying, and you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy walking into Starbucks.

Bulk data collection is obviously different.  Essentially, the USSCt draws a line between things you can see/hear, and things that you need special equipment to see hear.  Zoom cameras and night-vision capability don't necessarily violate any REOP.  If I could see/hear your activities/conversation from the street next to your house, business, car on a public street, etc., then I can record the same activities/conversation from a remote location--even the air.  Use of technological enhancements that allow the FBI to capture information that a live agent couldn't get from a place he would be otherwise allowed to be will violate the Fourth Amendment in most cases.

There is also a significant difference in collection as part of a criminal investigation and collection for intelligence purposes.  The distinction may not make a difference to most Americans, but the two are very different and covered by different rules.  The FBI conducts criminal investigations.  The NSA/CIA collect intelligence.

The FBI does, btw, regulate these activities with internal procedures.  They do so anytime an investigative technique, practice, or capability approaches a constitutional line.  I'm sure there is marginal abuse, but the internal procedures are rigorous in some cases.  I personally was involved in an espionage investigation which resulted in me being lead counsel on a prosecution under the Espionage Acts.  During the investigation the agents wanted to get a FISA warrant.  Without describing the procedures in detail, I'll just say that the FBI/DoJ doesn't take FISA applications lightly.  I spent in excess of 25 hours in meetings, VTCs, etc. related to the application for a single warrant...and "they" never even submitted the application.  That process was just to convince the folks at DoJ who apply for the warrants on behalf of Field Offices that the warrant was necessary and justified.

Interesting read ... thanks for the info!

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

When you are using cameras on the ground or in aircraft to capture cell phone id's and video footage of the general public you are spying on US citizens.  None of the data collected is done so under a warrant and there's no proof that the data on non persons of interest is ever discarded.

Here in Virginia, our state has cameras that monitor cars' license plate locations. I know this because my parents have a car registered in South Carolina, but they spend about half their time here in VA. One year, the tax collectors in VA sent them a letter saying that their SC-licensed car had spent more than X number of months in VA, making it fall under property taxes here. When my parents called, the clerk explained that they had cameras monitoring cars throughout the state and software that figured out how many months each and every car remained in the state.

Surely that would meet your definition above about spying on the general public.

I've tried googling for confirmation and found some stuff:

http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Despite-Legal-Opinion-Plate-Scanners-in-Virginia-Are-Still-Active.html

Quote:

Despite restrictions imposed by a legal opinion, Big Brother is still watching you.

More specifically, your license plates.

....

For Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the crucial issue is not how long the data is kept, but any passive collection of personal data without a demonstrable link to suspected criminal activity.

She hinted that the ACLU might pursue the issue in court.

“This is the Bill of Rights issue of our time,” she said: “How should you be protecting people’s privacy in an age of technology that was completely uncontemplated and unimagined at the time our Constitution was written? I think most people believe that the government shouldn’t be able to track you 24 hours a day.”

Police personnel who use license plate readers argue they’re not invading anybody’s privacy because they’re operating on public thoroughfares.

“Your license plate is displayed in public, so there’s no expectation of privacy,” Capt. Scott Burke, who runs the program for the Portsmouth Police Department, said during a recent demonstration of the technology.

[k-troop]

Here in Virginia, our state has cameras that monitor cars' license plate locations. I know this because my parents have a car registered in South Carolina, but they spend about half their time here in VA. One year, the tax collectors in VA sent them a letter saying that their SC-licensed car had spent more than X number of months in VA, making it fall under property taxes here. When my parents called, the clerk explained that they had cameras monitoring cars throughout the state and software that figured out how many months each and every car remained in the state. Surely that would meet your definition above about spying on the general public.  I've tried googling for confirmation and found some stuff: [URL=http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Despite-Legal-Opinion-Plate-Scanners-in-Virginia-Are-Still-Active.html]http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Despite-Legal-Opinion-Plate-Scanners-in-Virginia-Are-Still-Active.html[/URL]

This is exactly what I was referring to. Activities in plain view aren't protected. Scanning for cellphone data is a different story though. I'm not sure that would be lawful without some sort of warrant or other legal authority.