Government's Been Doin' More than Just Wiretappin International Calls...

[INRM]

It's turned out that the government (NSA being the agency particularly involved) has been spying on potentially every single call, and every single internet transmission, e-mail by every single phone company, ISP, and e-mail service provider into, out of, and WITHIN the United States of America since this "Warrantless Wiretapping" has started.

Recently a worker at an AT&T office building, who actually built a device which duplicated every single and stored it into a computer located in an isolated, guarded room deep-inside said building (with only specially cleared personnel allowed in), has filed a law-suit against the government over it. Chances are it will probably be thrown out as National Security lately seems to be more than following the law.

(I saw it on the news yesterday. The information in below link, as of this moment *IS* completely accurate, even though it is a Wikipedia Article, and matches what I saw on the news,)
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database

The NSA call database is a reported database created by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) that contains records of telephone calls made from the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, Verizon and BellSouth.[1]
The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006.[1] It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records.[2] According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks [1] — . These records do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls. The database's existence has prompted fierce objections from those who view it as a warrantless or illegal search and a violation of the pen register provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and (in some cases) the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The George W. Bush administration has neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the domestic call record database. This contrasts with a related NSA controversy concerning warrantless surveillance of selected telephone calls; in that case they did confirm the existence of the program of debated legality.


I hope I got everything right...

Tell me what your opinions are as to what the government is doing. Do you agree, do you disagree, are you horrified?

I personally think this is a gross violation of the fourth-amendment...


And while I'm at it... Tell me if this ain't disturbing too (Same source actually)


Political action

The Senate Armed Services Committee was scheduled to hold hearings with NSA whistle-blower Russell Tice the week following the revelation of the NSA call database. Tice indicated that his testimony would reveal information on additional illegal activity related to the NSA call database that has not yet been made public, and that even a number of NSA employees believe what they are doing is illegal. Tice also told the National Journal that he "will not confirm or deny" if his testimony will include information on spy satellites being used to spy on American citizens from space. [29] However, these hearings did not occur and the reason why is unknown.
(Bold Emphasis Mine)


INRM
Let's hope I don't get a heart-attack

[technoextreme]

spy satellites being used to spy on American citizens from space. [29]
Nope. Not really disturbing nor do I think it violates any law.
The Senate Armed Services Committee was scheduled to hold hearings with NSA whistle-blower Russell Tice the week following the revelation of the NSA call database. Tice indicated that his testimony would reveal information on additional illegal activity related to the NSA call database that has not yet been made public, and that even a number of NSA employees believe what they are doing is illegal.
If they truly believe what they are doing is illegal then we would know. Whistle blowing is the most ethical thing to be doing. Either they are a bunch of freaking cowards or they don't exist. I'm leaning towards don't exist.

[INRM]

Technoextreme,

Using spy-satellites to spy on American Citizens from space is a gross-violation of the fourth-Amendment... No unreasonable search and seizures.

INRM

[Ziggurat]

Using spy-satellites to spy on American Citizens from space is a gross-violation of the fourth-Amendment... No unreasonable search and seizures.

Is a picture taken from above really a "search"? I doubt it. I mean, legally, what's the difference between a spy satellite photo of your roof and a cop looking at your front door? I can't see any, and if you expect anyone to buy your line, you've got some explaining to do about what the difference is.

[ConspiRaider]

Technoextreme,

Using spy-satellites to spy on American Citizens from space is a gross-violation of the fourth-Amendment... No unreasonable search and seizures.

INRM
Hi INRM -

Of course it is. But the U.S. Constitution does not really matter anymore. And even more horrifying? Probably a majority of Americans agree with Technoextreme. We've become wimps, wuss-boys. We've lost that fierce American idealism in regards to right to privacy. And in so many other areas as well.

I first saw this, and was sounding the alarm to anyone who would listen, when Reagan instituted the urine-testing for drugs as a prerequisite to get a job. Clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Could not be clearer. But what did I run up against, almost exclusively to any other view? "It's fine. OF COURSE an employer should be able to examine my urine anytime they want. Sheez! What's wrong with you? Do you have something to hide?"

Nobody would listen. That broke the ice, back there in the mid-1980s. Today, people don't mind if they are being spied upon by their government. Don't mind if their calls are monitored, their emails read, their snail mail opened if need be. Don't mind if torture is used on anyone suspicious - so long as you don't give us the grisly details. Jest pertekt us, G-men. Whatevers ya gotta do.

We Americans are wusses. We have no balls, anymore. We beg for Big Daddy Government to guard us from all those scarinesses of life. The word "pioneer" no longer exists in the American lexicon. Nor the phrase "rugged individualism". We're becoming vapid and obese and guarantee-demanding humanoids, who live our lives vicariously through various visual and aural media. Because if you're not really living life - why care if Big Gov is looking in on you? You're not doing anything anyway.

[krelnik]

Recently a worker at an AT&T office building....has filed a law-suit against the government over it.

(I saw it on the news yesterday....

Tell me what your opinions are as to what the government is doing. Do you agree, do you disagree, are you horrified?


Part of what horrifies me about this is the fact that many folks are just hearing about it now. Mark Klein first came forward over 18 months ago (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70621), and it has taken until now for this to really surface widely in the mainstream media.

The other horrifying aspect of this is that the phone companies are actively lobbying in Congress to be granted retroactive immunity for their behavior in this whole affair. Their fear is that if the public were to react to this strongly (IMHO, as I think they should) that they (the companies) might be buried in class-action lawsuits and bankrupted.

Personally, I think we should hold both the government and these companies accountable for their actions. There are plenty of mechanisms that were in place LONG before 9/11, notably the FISA court, that allow the government to gather information on legitimate threats inside the U.S. The records that are available show that FISA almost always grants the requests that are made of it.

Yet somehow this was not enough for the current administration. I think this is a shameful violation of the law and it should be punished severely.

--Tim Farley

[GreNME]

Part of what horrifies me about this is the fact that many folks are just hearing about it now. Mark Klein first came forward over 18 months ago (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70621), and it has taken until now for this to really surface widely in the mainstream media.

Beat me to it.

Honestly, people, lots of us have known about a lot of these sorts of things (sans operational details) for quite some time already. Aso soon as I found out about AT&T handing over transaction records (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70126) to the NSA, I knew the line had been crossed. A few years ago we in IT who had worked for one provider or another were worried about having to deal with the legal liabilities of having a Carnivore in one of our buildings. While I've heard there are some claims of them being out there, though, I've not seen one and don't really care to. I don't have anything to fear from such systems personally, but what worries me more is that I know people who have in the past and are currently working in the realm of national security, and judging from their accounts I am left with zero confidence that these data miners are going to be useful in any significant way in areas where the security agencies are trying to head off dangerous organizations, and it's going to leave huge legal liability hurdles for individuals to get over if they eventually do come across some activity that could potentially lead to danger or terrorist activity.

These methods are practically (not totally, but mostly) useless. I'm not concerned about the data security-- sorry, but no data that travels over the intarwebs is 100% secure, folks-- I'm concerned that all this will do is create another layer of unnecessary complexity in our intelligence community that opens them up to a whole ocean of uninteresting information, which will only bog the process down and further slow it from having sufficient time to respond to a threat. It should be kept in mind that it wasn't lack of information that led to 9/11 happening, it was lack of sufficient time and interoperation to extrapolate where the activities we were aware of were actually heading. Deluging our intelligence services with even more data doesn't speed up the process, it just bogs it down.

To reduce (or over-simplify) the anology: I am the head of IT where I work and, if I were so inclined, I could have a constant system of monitoring for every keystroke and mouse click in my company. The technology is present to allow me this capability. Such a capability is useless for me from a security perspective because if I'm catching the problems at the point where keystrokes and mouse-clicks are the significant occurrance then the danger has already breached our systems and I don't have sufficient pairs of eyes and hands to monitor every employee's activities in a meaningful manner (which would require IT security staff for nearly every operational employee). That is essentially a waste of resources and still won't guarantee that no exploit will ever get by. I fear that this is how our government intelligence agencies are being utilized, and it weakens their overall effectiveness.

[technoextreme]

Technoextreme,

Using spy-satellites to spy on American Citizens from space is a gross-violation of the fourth-Amendment... No unreasonable search and seizures.

INRM
Nope. It's not. Your standing out in the open so in reality it doesn't work. The government could follow you. It isn't illegal. They can take pictures of you and follow you. It isn't illegal. Now give me a rational.

[technoextreme]

Nobody would listen. That broke the ice, back there in the mid-1980s. Today, people don't mind if they are being spied upon by their government. Don't mind if their calls are monitored, their emails read, their snail mail opened if need be. Don't mind if torture is used on anyone suspicious - so long as you don't give us the grisly details. Jest pertekt us, G-men. Whatevers ya gotta do.

Just as a side note I never said that I was against the above. I was just expressing my skepticism of the whistleblower's comments about other people thinking it was illegal (A major breach of ethics for almost every single field I can think off).

[GreNME]

Nobody would listen. That broke the ice, back there in the mid-1980s. Today, people don't mind if they are being spied upon by their government. Don't mind if their calls are monitored, their emails read, their snail mail opened if need be. Don't mind if torture is used on anyone suspicious - so long as you don't give us the grisly details. Jest pertekt us, G-men. Whatevers ya gotta do.

Hey, I am totally with you on being against the government and law enforcement sticking their noses so deep into anyone's business they want for security. However, I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on the little bit of hyperbole above.

When you're at work, if you're using the work-supplied e-mail then it isn't yours. It belongs to your employer, is the intellectual property of the employer (unless your employment agreement states otherwise), and as such they have every right to monitor what you do with their property while you work there. To a different degree (discounting personal calls or letters which are your domain) the same applies with work telephone calls and snail mail correspondence. You see, if some employee decides to treat their work e-mail as their own personal correspondence system, any unfortunate consequences eventually reflect back on people like me, who are in charge of the infrastructure that e-mail is running on. People who use their work e-mail for their personal dealings like that are disregarding the hard work that goes into making sure they and the rest of the employees are able to do their job and putting the system the e-mail is build on at risk, which quite frankly is unacceptable.

Keep in mind that the computer you operate at work isn't yours. Any data you're saving on it or using on it, in the long run, belongs to the company you work for by default. Period. Well-though-out IT systems typically provide for the employees who are on the computers constantly a sort of "personal locker" for information that is personal in nature, but even with that it needs to be kept in mind that security measures like antivirus or anti-malware detect a threat they can delete it. I allow access to services like GMail, Yahoo mail, and Hotmail (among others) for the employees where I work, and I make no attempt to monitor anything having to do with those activities-- it would be unethical and (probably) illegal to do so.

On the other hand, there are things in certain types of electronic systems where it is illegal to rifle through people's information. Banks, for example, do not allow 'security' or IT personnel to access financial data, not for customers nor for employees unless it has to do with a background (criminal) check. For healthcare, HIPAA specifically restricts patient records to a need-to-know basis, and the rule of thumb is to always err on the side of caution and make sure there is proper authorization for access to any patient data. Sarbanes-Oxley, weak and ham-handed though it is, was meant to protect customer data from being able to be used in unethical and otherwise (outside of electronic transactions) illegal ways. There are plenty of examples of practices and legislation put in place specifically designed to protect the individual from abuse.

The problem as I see it is that the standards for ethics and legality aren't always keeping up with the expanded capabilities of data access. If you're communicating on any level over the internet, your information is only really "protectable" to a certain degree. Internet aside, there are really only a few significant things a person needs to know about you in order to steal your identity, and not much more than that to spy on you. To avoid being detectable you would literally have to be living with no credit, off the grid of service providers, not registered with any law enforcement, and not have your residence in any publically-accessible directory anywhere. The concept of "privacy" all depends on the degree to which you want to define it. The part that is really unnerving is that, in most cases, you are trusting that your privacy is being upheld through the confidence of individuals you have not and will probably never meet. That's where the lack of standards tends to bother me, because especially in my own field of work I have heard of individuals taking part in ethical breaches of confidence that personally makes me sick.

I'm not in the field of intelligence, though, and I don't work for a company in the field of intelligence. What's made me most uneasy has been the last five years or so of small steps in expanding the boundaries of where intelligence can reach into the lives of individuals, and in that I can agree with your discontent. I prefer knowing exactly how much leeway a given agency has with interfering or snooping into my personal life-- that's what created my interest for information security in the first place-- so I understand not liking hearing about the further presence of government intelligence into our personal communications. Things like what I heard about AT&T keeps me from ever using their service, and when I find others who do the same I begin looking for alternatives to them as well.

[Soapy Sam]

Given 80% of my email is either spam, "jokes" from friends, junk from my employers or other drivel, if mine is typical, I feel truly sorry for any gummint flack who has to read a couple of hundred peoples' mail every day.

I'd scatter a few naughty words here, just to cheer them up, but the nannobot would asterisk them out anyway.

[webfusion]

GreNME indicates: The concept of "privacy" all depends on the degree to which you want to define it.

Apparently , this is exactly the same thing that the government is saying --
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERRORIST_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=GMADN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"Say Goodbye To Privacy"

[ConspiRaider]

Nope. It's not. Your standing out in the open so in reality it doesn't work. The government could follow you. It isn't illegal. They can take pictures of you and follow you. It isn't illegal. Now give me a rational.
You want a rationale? Try this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Don't you know anything about the U.S. Constitution?

Before you can be followed or photographed by the U.S. Federal government, agents of that government must have a belief that YOU specifically may be violating the law. But just thinking you are up to no good - it is not good enough. No, those agents must justify, legally, their search of YOU before they do it.

Everyone understood this concept - before a majority of Americans wussed out.

Hey - if you are an American citizen and you don't like the 4th Amendment? Start an action to repeal it. Get it off the books. Go!

[Radrook]

Why would an honest person who doesn't intend on breaking any major laws be afraid of being seen? I can understand terrorists, for example, finding it against their best interests. Actually, I am in favor of implantation of an unremovable microchip in each newborn child making him or her geographically traceable in the event of serious criminal behavior. But that's just my opinion, of course which I am sure many will find unacceptable.

BTW
I am not advocating an unconstitional abuse of this surveylance capability. Just an application where the Constitution justifies it.

[ConspiRaider]

Why would an honest person who doesn't intend on breaking any major laws be afraid of being seen? I can understand terrorists, for example, finding it against their best interests. Actually, I am in favor of implantation of an unremovable microchip in each newborn child making him or her geographically traceable in the event of serious criminal behavior. But that's just my opinion, of course which I am sre many will find unacceptable.
Of COURSE it's unacceptable.

How about asking the Canadian who accidentally got rendered to another country for torture, if he doesn't mind government access to him, anytime they wish.

Don't you know that people behave differently when they know they are being watched, filmed, spied upon? Of course you do. Remember back in the good old days when you KNEW you were being filmed at some event, such as a wedding reception? Before the horror we have today, where anyone can now be filmed and recorded - without their knowledge or consent - by a friggin' CELL PHONE. Anyway, there you are at the table at the reception, acting like a jerk, drinking, laughing, relaxing - and then the big camera sweeps over your table. Notice how EVERYONE - once they know they are on camera - acts differently. More proper. More staged. More phony.

That's what you want? An entire society under constant video scrutiny by a lousy GOVERNMENT? Have you ever read Orwell's 1984? The telescreen? The fact that writing a friggin' JOURNAL was illegal, and that the main character did it anyway, in secret? Thought he was fooling them? Nope. They knew all about it.

Is that what life is supposed to be? Being monitored 24/7? That's not life. That is slavery.

[WildCat]

Before you can be followed or photographed by the U.S. Federal government, agents of that government must have a belief that YOU specifically may be violating the law.
A photograph is not a search or a seizure. Police can observe you all they want without any suspicions at all, because observation is not a search or seizure. I think a better case could be made by the frequent use of dogs to sniff cars for drugs in the absence of a search warrant being unconstitutional, but this has been ruled legal for some reason.

And I don't know what your views on guns are, but don't be surprised that other amendments can be interpreted into meaninglessness just as the 2nd Amendment was. If you support "assault rifle" bans despite "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then you aren't really the defender of the Constitution you say you are.

[GreNME]

GreNME indicates:

Apparently , this is exactly the same thing that the government is saying --
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TERRORIST_SURVEILLANCE?SITE=GMADN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"Say Goodbye To Privacy"

Holy cherry-picker, Batman!

I also said the government's activities with regard to increasing their breadth of jurisdiction over the last five or so years has been bad. I also said that increasing the flow of personal communications data to government intelligence hurts their effectiveness as well as infringing on personal lives. I also said a whole lot of other stuff.

Seriously, taking stuff I said out of context is pretty stupid and weak, and exactly the kind of fallacious methodology that conspiracy theorists use to make up their ideas that the evil NWO is out to take their freedom and impose rule under "the evil Zionist J00s!!!one!!1!"

Give me a break.

[ConspiRaider]

A photograph is not a search or a seizure. Police can observe you all they want without any suspicions at all, because observation is not a search or seizure. I think a better case could be made by the frequent use of dogs to sniff cars for drugs in the absence of a search warrant being unconstitutional, but this has been ruled legal for some reason.

And I don't know what your views on guns are, but don't be surprised that other amendments can be interpreted into meaninglessness just as the 2nd Amendment was. If you support "assault rifle" bans despite "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then you aren't really the defender of the Constitution you say you are.
Wrong. A photograph taken of you - without your knowledge or consent - is a search. Literally - it is a theft of YOU. If you did not give permission - no consent. What - they are going to take your picture or a video of you - and then not LOOK at it? Not search it? Of course they will do that.

Do you see what has happened to America, Cat? Why I call us wusses? We now have a country of citizens arguing IN FAVOR of being spied upon by their government, anytime that government wishes, for any reason whatsoever! Even for NO reason. Just - because. Are you listening to yourself? You actually are content in such a world? Do you think ANY of the framers of the U.S. Constitution had ANYTHING like unrestricted spying by the U.S. Government upon its citizenry on their minds when this Law Of The Land was drawn up?

[Radrook]

Of COURSE it's unacceptable.

How about asking the Canadian who accidentally got rendered to another country for torture, if he doesn't mind government access to him, anytime they wish.

Don't you know that people behave differently when they know they are being watched, filmed, spied upon? Of course you do. Remember back in the good old days when you KNEW you were being filmed at some event, such as a wedding reception? Before the horror we have today, where anyone can now be filmed and recorded - without their knowledge or consent - by a friggin' CELL PHONE. Anyway, there you are at the table at the reception, acting like a jerk, drinking, laughing, relaxing - and then the big camera sweeps over your table. Notice how EVERYONE - once they know they are on camera - acts differently. More proper. More staged. More phony.

That's what you want? An entire society under constant video scrutiny by a lousy GOVERNMENT? Have you ever read Orwell's 1984? The telescreen? The fact that writing a friggin' JOURNAL was illegal, and that the main character did it anyway, in secret? Thought he was fooling them? Nope. They knew all about it.

Is that what life is supposed to be? Being monitored 24/7? That's not life. That is slavery.

Of course not. I am merely proposing that since some humans tend to place bombs, rape, torture, etecetra, that these humans be made easily traceable via an unremovable microchip implanted at birth. This way they can be instantly located and brought to justice. I do not suggest the constant snooping that you describe.

Also, I still think that those who have the most to lose from being made instantly traceable within a non-totalitarian society are the criminals. This scenario, of course is assuming a government guided by just laws and not some dictatorial, Nazi, or Communist type regime which would use this technology to violate human rights more efficiently.

BTW
Just recently I viewed an interview of a serial killer who was finally caught after killing approx sixty people. Such acts go untraceable because of the perpetrator's ability to merge into the crowds and seemingly disapear until the next available victimis within reach.

[Ziggurat]

Wrong. A photograph taken of you - without your knowledge or consent - is a search. Literally - it is a theft of YOU.

A theft? Hardly. This is simply ridiculous.

What - they are going to take your picture or a video of you - and then not LOOK at it? Not search it? Of course they will do that.

Funny thing, but the constitution doesn't actually require warrants for searches. And if looking at something from a public space (such as standing on a public street and looking at your house) counts as searching, then the police are not only allowed to search without warrants, they're expected to. As far as I can tell from your logic, police aren't allowed to even look at someone walking down the street, because doing so might be stealing. And whatever you do, don't look up your house on Google Earth, or you'll be robbing your neighbors.

I asked this before and got no response, but what is the legal theory differentiating a sattellite photo of your house from a police officer looking at your front door?

[Tailgater]

Wrong. A photograph taken of you - without your knowledge or consent - is a search. Literally - it is a theft of YOU. If you did not give permission - no consent. What - they are going to take your picture or a video of you - and then not LOOK at it? Not search it? Of course they will do that.


I'm pretty sure you are wrong here. Short of trespassing or peaking in your window, anyone can take a picture of you. Anywhere. Anytime.

[GreNME]

I'm pretty sure you are wrong here. Short of trespassing or peaking in your window, anyone can take a picture of you. Anywhere. Anytime.

Whether they can take the picture or not isn't the issue. It is how said picture or video is used that causes question of legality. I don't think that it has been as fully addressed in the US as it may have been in other countries with more ubiquitous video monitoring in place.

Keep in mind that even the use of stop light cameras is still a contested and debated use of cameras, and those are on public property. There is a legal ambiguity here with regard to surveillance, but as far as I am aware it's not an issue that has had a heavy spotlight for public debate... at least not as much as the wiretapping issue has.

[Ziggurat]

Keep in mind that even the use of stop light cameras is still a contested and debated use of cameras, and those are on public property.

But it's the fact that they're used to automatically issue tickets which causes controversy, not the fact that they're taking pictures of people in public places. What's the equivalent issue with satellite photos? I don't see one.

[gumboot]

I have a question...

The US Constitution specifically limits what the government can do, and does not apply to private companies. For example the Constitution does not prevent your employer from being able to scan your work emails, phone calls, etc.

What is the legal position of things such as a phone line provided to you by a private company? Does the agreement with the phone company make that line "yours" or does it belong to the company?

In New Zealand we have a specific law called the Privacy Act which means a private company or government agency is not allowed to use personal information except for the purpose for which it was gathered. This is very strict, and prevents, for example, a private company selling information about you to another private company. It also has its issues, particular in the realm of immigration violations and child abuse.

It is my understanding that in the USA no such law exists. It seems to me, if a private company had gathered information about you, which they then owned, they could legally then give that information to the government if they wished.

For example, say your work place scans all of their employee's work email traffic, and forwards anything of interest to the FBI. I don't see how that would breach the Constitution as the email service belongs to your employer, not you, therefore your employer can do what they want with it. Or is there additional US law which prevents them doing certain things with such information?

Regards,
-Gumboot

[Cylinder]

Dow Chemical v the United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=476&invol=227)

1. The fact that aerial photography by petitioner's competitors might be barred by state trade secrets law is irrelevant to the questions presented in this case. Governments do not generally seek to appropriate trade secrets of the private sector, and the right to be free of appropriation of trade secrets is protected by law. Moreover, state tort law governing unfair competition does not define the limits of the Fourth Amendment.

2. The use of aerial observation and photography is within EPA's statutory authority. When Congress invests an agency such as EPA with enforcement and investigatory authority, it is not necessary to identify explicitly every technique that may be used in the course of executing the statutory mission. Although 114(a) of the Clean Air Act, which provides for EPA's right of entry to premises for inspection purposes, does not authorize aerial observation, that section appears to expand, not restrict, EPA's general investigatory powers, and there is no suggestion in the statute that the powers conferred by 114(a) are intended to be exclusive. EPA needs no explicit statutory provision to employ methods of observation commonly available to the public at large.

3. EPA's taking, without a warrant, of aerial photographs of petitioner's plant complex from an aircraft lawfully in public navigable airspace was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The open areas of an industrial plant complex such as petitioner's are not analogous to the "curtilage" of a dwelling, which is entitled to protection as a place where the occupants have a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept. The intimate activities associated with family privacy and the home and its curtilage simply do not reach the outdoor areas or spaces between structures and buildings of a manufacturing plant. For purposes of aerial surveillance, the open areas of an industrial complex are more comparable to an "open field" in which an individual may not legitimately demand privacy. Here, EPA was not employing some unique sensory device not available to the public, but rather was employing a conventional, albeit precise, commercial camera commonly used in mapmaking. The photographs were not so revealing of intimate details as to raise constitutional concerns. The mere fact that human vision is enhanced somewhat, at least to the degree here, does not give rise to constitutional problems.

Citations omitted.

[Cylinder]

What is the legal position of things such as a phone line provided to you by a private company? Does the agreement with the phone company make that line "yours" or does it belong to the company?

That's a complex question in a manner of thinking. AFAIK in all states the phone line belongs to the company but some US states are termed "dual consent" states which means that barring a court order, a phone call cannot be recorded without both parties' consent. Many states are termed "sole consent" meaning only one party to the communication need provide consent and some are "no consent" meaning the owner of the telecommunications service can consent without being party to the communication. In fact, in states such as California, it is a serious felony crime to record a conversation without dual consent. If you ever use a tech support service that also serves US customers you are probably familiar with the ubiquitous "this call may be monitored for quality assurance" disclaimer.

Ah, the joys of federalism...

[OnlyTellsTruths]

As far as the satelite picture/resolution derail goes... Looks like everyone needs bigger walls and more of them….. or more appropriately roofs……. oh and floors too (we can’t forget gopher cams).

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Now a bit closer back to the topic..... I hope someone can verify or deny this story (though I admittedly only made a pathetically lazy google search).

Having a 24 hour news station on in the background (CNN or FoxNews most likely though I don’t remember for sure (probably FOX (no not my decision which was on :) ))) (yes that’s 3 close parenthesis! and this one makes 4-->) I heard something about a supposed leak from this whole affair. IIRC it was around 2003-4.

It went something like this: Cell-phone companies were being made to allow for the microphone to transmit even if the cell phone is in “off” mode. So not only can “they (i'm assuming Will Smith)” listen through any cell phone, only removing the battery would prevent it. Which brings up the only other part of the story I remember, they also were made to have special battery reserve power for that purpose. In other words, after the cell-phone shuts itself down when you run out of battery power, it still has enough power to transmit the microphone for some time.

I remember not believing it when I heard it…… unfortunately it was on to another story by the time I focused completely on the TV so I might have misheard or misunderstood something (or less likely) everything about the story. I also remember thinking it was a bit odd since simply wrapping something around the mic to kill the sound would defeat the purpose. As would putting the whole phone in something like aluminum foil or in a (hopefully off) microwave to kill the transmission entirely..... Then again that would all be a hassle...... and "they" know people are lazy (see my first paragraph!)...... especially when it comes to a convenience like a cell phone. Oh and not only do "they" know we're lazy, "they" also know we're stupid! Clearly we're too stupid to even know what/where a microphone is, let alone cover it with something.

[Biff Starbuck]

INRM,

In my opinion, electronic monitoring of communications and using satellites to photograph citizens are two very different privacy issues.

Technoextreme,

Using spy-satellites to spy on American Citizens from space is a gross-violation of the fourth-Amendment... No unreasonable search and seizures.

INRM

As others have already pointed out, flying over a house with a satellite is not much different than flying over a house with an airplane or helicopter.

In addition to the case where the federal agents flew over the Dow plant, the Supreme Court looked at the issue again in the case of Kyllo v. US. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html The court held that while the Dow decision was correct, the warrantless use of thermal imaging equipment to detect the use of a suspect growing marijuana with lamps inside his house was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The system of checks and balances worked as designed. The court threw out the evidence that it decided was gathered in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.

I found an interesting article about this case law on a site for police aviators. They note that in the Kyllo case, a "sunset" for the prohibition of using thermal imaging was set up by the court since they noted the technology was not commonly available to the public. As prices drop and technology improves, more of our neighbors will have heat vision gear and a person's expectation of privacy about how much heat their house puts out will drop. http://www.alea.org/public/airbeat/back_issues/sep_oct_2006/IRLegal.htm

In the past few years, the prices on thermal imaging systems have gone from the tens of thousands down to used ones on ebay for about $1000 USD. They are used by fire departments to see through smoke and building contractors to look for heat leaking out of a house. How much privacy can you expect if everyone could go out and buy a thermal imaging system at Walmart for $49.99? I would love to have one of these. http://www.imaging1.com/razir.html


The reasonable expectation of privacy is the whole crux of the argument. The court correctly pointed out that the threshold changes with circumstances and technology. You say the government should not use satellites to look at us. Does that mean everyone else in the world can look at Google Earth and see my truck parked in my driveway, or hypothetically, my backyard full of stolen cars in my "chop-shop," but the police can't? If I am walking down the street, is the policeman supposed to turn his head and not look at me? What about the policeman in a helicopter?

For more about the history of the Fourth Amendment, the Cornell Law web site has a good summary. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/01.html

[e-sabbath]

This is not news to anyone in the IT field. It is probably illegal, and Congress won't do jack straw about it. It's pretty much exactly why the telcos have been lobbying for immunity.

The NSA has been getting this kind of information for decades. There were scandals in the past when it was discovered they were getting copies of all phone calls, all sorts of things.

I'm not happy about this at all, but we're also powerless to do anything about it. It is, however, one of the reasons I have been writing letters to my representative.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Well to follow you a bit further on this semi-derail I would see three options for the thermal imaging law (though it could also pertain to the visual (air photos, etc.) or smell (dog sniffing, etc.)).

1. Thermal imaging not allowed what-so-ever (they aren’t allowed to look period) (only allowed after evidence is gathered (normal warrant procedures)).

2. Thermal imaging allowed but not as evidence (they are allowed to look, but have to find other evidence after they find out what’s going on).

3. Thermal imaging allowed as sole evidence (1984).

Unfortunately, as Biff alluded to, we’re leaning towards the second and not the first option.

[Biff Starbuck]

Now a bit closer back to the topic..... I hope someone can verify or deny this story (though I admittedly only made a pathetically lazy google search).

It went something like this: Cell-phone companies were being made to allow for the microphone to transmit even if the cell phone is in “off” mode. So not only can “they (i'm assuming Will Smith)” listen through any cell phone, only removing the battery would prevent it. Which brings up the only other part of the story I remember, they also were made to have special battery reserve power for that purpose. In other words, after the cell-phone shuts itself down when you run out of battery power, it still has enough power to transmit the microphone for some time.
...


I think the "companies being made to" part is a bit too conspiratorial. A cell phone is basically a radio transceiver attached to a computer. If you look online hard enough, you can find codes for many phones on how to remotely call them without the phone ringing. You can even set your own phone to silent and auto-answer. Guess what, you just did it to yourself.

If you are feeling lazy, you can also just buy a phone to spy on your loved ones. http://www.endoacustica.com/spy_telephone.htm

I think companies don't bother fixing the problem because it would take too much money to fix all of the holes in the phone software that allow such monitoring. Think of how many new phones come out every year from all the different manufacturers. That is a lot of software to worry about, and frankly, the public would apparently wants to have the hottest new phone at a low price rather than worry about how secure it is. The phone manufacturers are all just scrambling now to come up with something more exciting than the Apple iPhone.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Also, how long can this topic last before someone mentions profiling?
.
.
oops

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I think the "companies being made to" part is a bit too conspiratorial.

This is what I thought when I heard it, not to say it didn't make a 24 hour news station.... Also, sorry i called you Bill a post or two back Biff.

[Biff Starbuck]

This is not news to anyone in the IT field. It is probably illegal, and Congress won't do jack straw about it. It's pretty much exactly why the telcos have been lobbying for immunity.

The NSA has been getting this kind of information for decades. There were scandals in the past when it was discovered they were getting copies of all phone calls, all sorts of things.

I'm not happy about this at all, but we're also powerless to do anything about it. It is, however, one of the reasons I have been writing letters to my representative.

In the good old days, after probable cause was gathered, a judge issued a warrant, and a phone was tapped. Now, with the ever increasing complexity of modern telecommunications, it makes more sense to pre-install the equipment. In theory...If there is probable cause, the law enforcement officers should apply for either a warrant under Title III for most crimes or FISA for intelligence issues. http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00028.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Co urt

There is a provision also for exigent circumstances, where the information can be collected, and then the warrant obtained from the FISA court after the fact.

Obviously there has been some recent controversy though about whether or not the concept of exigency was being abused and whether or not the warrants were obtained after the fact as intended by the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

[Biff Starbuck]

This is what I thought when I heard it, not to say it didn't make a 24 hour news station.... Also, sorry i called you Bill a post or two back Biff.

No problem. And it's not the first time :)

[Biff Starbuck]

I have a question...

The US Constitution specifically limits what the government can do, and does not apply to private companies. For example the Constitution does not prevent your employer from being able to scan your work emails, phone calls, etc.

What is the legal position of things such as a phone line provided to you by a private company? Does the agreement with the phone company make that line "yours" or does it belong to the company?

In New Zealand we have a specific law called the Privacy Act which means a private company or government agency is not allowed to use personal information except for the purpose for which it was gathered. This is very strict, and prevents, for example, a private company selling information about you to another private company. It also has its issues, particular in the realm of immigration violations and child abuse.

It is my understanding that in the USA no such law exists. It seems to me, if a private company had gathered information about you, which they then owned, they could legally then give that information to the government if they wished.

For example, say your work place scans all of their employee's work email traffic, and forwards anything of interest to the FBI. I don't see how that would breach the Constitution as the email service belongs to your employer, not you, therefore your employer can do what they want with it. Or is there additional US law which prevents them doing certain things with such information?

Regards,
-Gumboot

As far as I know, there is a complex series of laws and legal precedent regarding privacy. For the US government, the Privacy Act of 1974 explains what the government can do with information collected about a citizen. http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm

For private companies, there are other laws that apply http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html
Presumably the law about releasing video tape rental records applies to DVD rentals, since it includes "similar materials." If I recall correctly, there have been some recent laws proposed or enacted such as the credit protection act which gave citizens a right to a free copy of what the credit bureaus had on file them.

In 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) also attempted to protect the privacy of individuals, for example by making it unlawful to listen to cellular phone calls without a warrant. Prior to that, anyone could legally buy a radio scanner and listen to those calls since they were broadcast on the public airwaves and unencrypted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECPA

Generally, your employer can only monitor your e-mail and phone conversations if they have the message along the lines of what Cylinder pointed out earlier "This conversation may be monitored..." If your boss is snooping on your business or personal calls without your knowledge, it would generally be a crime. Often, work computers have a startup screen reminding you that the company owns the computer, and telling you that you have no expectation of privacy. Many big companies will also have you sign something when you start work, acknowledging you understand they can and will monitor your computer use.

Yes, your employer can forward suspicious e-mail to the FBI. This happens frequently with child pornography cases. The material can be used as evidence as long as the company did the search on their own. Similarly, if you take your computer in for repair, and the repairman finds the illegal material on his own, it can be used as evidence. However, if the cops suspect someone has illegal material on their computer, and go ask the repairman to look for files he would not otherwise have looked at, it would be an unlawful warrantless search, since the repairman would have been acting at the behest of the police.

All in all, it will keep the lawyers in business for a long time sorting this whole lot out. A good resource for information about these kinds of cases is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) http://www.eff.org/work

[JoeEllison]

Why would an honest person who doesn't intend on breaking any major laws be afraid of being seen? I can understand terrorists, for example, finding it against their best interests. Actually, I am in favor of implantation of an unremovable microchip in each newborn child making him or her geographically traceable in the event of serious criminal behavior. But that's just my opinion, of course which I am sure many will find unacceptable.

BTW
I am not advocating an unconstitional abuse of this surveylance capability. Just an application where the Constitution justifies it.

The flip side is "why would the government avoid getting warrants if their searches are legal?" and "why would the telecom companies seek immunity if what they did was legal?"

[fuelair]

Why would an honest person who doesn't intend on breaking any major laws be afraid of being seen? I can understand terrorists, for example, finding it against their best interests. Actually, I am in favor of implantation of an unremovable microchip in each newborn child making him or her geographically traceable in the event of serious criminal behavior. But that's just my opinion, of course which I am sure many will find unacceptable.

BTW
I am not advocating an unconstitional abuse of this surveylance capability. Just an application where the Constitution justifies it.Anything that can be used to surveil legally can be used to surveil illegally. An implanted chip(which I am not against on a voluntary -pure voluntary - basis) could be used by someone/some group with legal access to use all sorts of locational data to plan crimes, subvert criminal searches, arrange blackmail, etc. Only if true/complete control of access and use (access requires three codes from three different persons together only for this specific use and not normally in contact and generated every few microseconds, etc. for example) is possible should this even be considered.

[GreNME]

In the good old days, after probable cause was gathered, a judge issued a warrant, and a phone was tapped. Now, with the ever increasing complexity of modern telecommunications, it makes more sense to pre-install the equipment. In theory...If there is probable cause, the law enforcement officers should apply for either a warrant under Title III for most crimes or FISA for intelligence issues.

Ahh, but see, this is where I have the problem with utilizing data miners in the first place. First, the equipment being used isn't just targeting instances of probable cause. That right there gets into some sketchy territory. Second, the amount of data coming through would be massive, far too much for even a reasonable-sized group of agents to be able to find the terrorist needle in the service provider haystack, and that's assuming the communications between the hypothetical terrorist and their overseas base are in a clearly-readable format. Not even Google, with its huge farm of computers chugging away day and night, have reliable enough algorythms that I would have confidence they could find such a needle, and frankly our federal intelligence agencies are no Google (in terms of resources at their disposal). Third, even I can come up with ways to dodge detection under those kinds of monitoring scenarios, using simple, mostly free, and only nominally complex practices.

The effectiveness of such intelligence operations is directly proportional to the amount of useless and uninteresting data they have to sift through to find something worthwhile. The practice is flawed not simply from a concern over privacy (though I think it's worth being concerned about), but because of the inundation of useless information and the relative ease for avoiding detection.

[Oliver]

PBS FRONTLINE: "Spying on the Homefront" http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107452199491b45d.gif

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/

[Biff Starbuck]

Well to follow you a bit further on this semi-derail I would see three options for the thermal imaging law (though it could also pertain to the visual (air photos, etc.) or smell (dog sniffing, etc.)).

1. Thermal imaging not allowed what-so-ever (they aren’t allowed to look period) (only allowed after evidence is gathered (normal warrant procedures)).

2. Thermal imaging allowed but not as evidence (they are allowed to look, but have to find other evidence after they find out what’s going on).

3. Thermal imaging allowed as sole evidence (1984).

Unfortunately, as Biff alluded to, we’re leaning towards the second and not the first option.

I actually agree with the Supreme Court in that the expectation of privacy changes with technology and society and do not see a problem of the transition from 1 to 2. The current technology does not allow the third option to be realistic at this point. Just because someone's house is hot, does not necessarily mean they are growing marijuana. Maybe they just like growing tomatoes in the winter, or they have an indoor sauna. Additional evidence would have to corroborate the suspicion before a judge would issue a warrant. And it is certainly not even close to being considered "plain view" in the sense of seeing someone's marijuana plants growing in the back yard where the evidence can be seized on the spot.

However, I also think the laws need to constantly be updated to account for new privacy issues as technology advances. Previously, most states only prohibited surreptitious audio recording. That meant prosecutors had no means of criminally charging people who were using the newly available small video cameras to record people in changing rooms, locker rooms, or up women's skirts. As long as the audio was not recorded, it was not a crime. Now the laws are being changed.

Personally, I do not think a thermal view of the outside of my house is all that invasive. And it is certainly less revealing than someone standing on the sidewalk and looking in through a window with the blinds open. Now that police helicopters are routinely equipped with FLIR thermal imaging cameras in order to see in the dark, locate suspects, and find lost children, I do not think they need to pretend they did not see an unusually warm room in a house if they are out on patrol. In and of itself, I do not think it would be enough to get a search warrant, but it could be used as one small piece of evidence and a point of suspicion.

Eventually we will probably have to adapt current laws to limit the use of devices which can actually look through walls. Here is one primitive but commercially available tool. http://www.endoacustica.com/details_prisma_en.htm

Given the advances in backscatter and millimeter wave scanning now in use at airports around the world that can look through clothing, it is certainly conceivable that in 20 years a system will be on the market allowing people a detailed view through their neighbor's walls.

In the US, it is up to the legislative branch to create such laws for civilian and government use, the judicial branch to interpret if the laws are constitutional and being reasonably applied, and the executive branch to use the technology to catch the bad guys but not violate peoples' rights. The Supreme Court decision in Kyllo v. US that I linked to earlier very clearly indicated that the court wanted to make a "bright line" statement that law enforcement needed a warrant to look inside of someone's home with such technology, so much so that they disallowed the indirect evidence that the wall was warm since it hinted at the activities inside the house.

But if a camera that looked through walls went on the market tomorrow, I don't know if it would be illegal for the average citizen to look through his neighbor's wall and watch him eating dinner. Most of the new laws against video recordings of someone without their consent deal with nudity or sexual intent, not just invasion of privacy. That will be something the legislators will need to address when the technology gets to that point.

[Pardalis]

It's turned out that the government (NSA being the agency particularly involved) has been spying on potentially every single call, and every single internet transmission, e-mail by every single phone company, ISP, and e-mail service provider into, out of, and WITHIN the United States of America since this "Warrantless Wiretapping" has started.

Wouldn't that be like... alot of information?

How is that possible? :confused:

[Biff Starbuck]

Ahh, but see, this is where I have the problem with utilizing data miners in the first place. ...

The effectiveness of such intelligence operations is directly proportional to the amount of useless and uninteresting data they have to sift through to find something worthwhile. The practice is flawed not simply from a concern over privacy (though I think it's worth being concerned about), but because of the inundation of useless information and the relative ease for avoiding detection.

That is a good point. I guess it depends though on how you define data mining. I had in mind wiretaps and what might be considered retro-active data mining, where the cops would go back after the fact and for example pull all of a suspect's past phone calls. I think that is very effective, and can be relatively well targeted on one suspect or group.

What could be called pro-active data mining, where counter-terrorism agents sift through trillions of records, trying to find a pattern to identify as yet unknown terrorist suspects is a much more difficult task. I think you raise valid points both about efficacy and privacy. And in some ways, society must balance how much privacy they are willing to give up against how effective the data mining is at catching terrorists and criminals. If the program is ineffective, I think most people would be less tolerant of giving up some of their privacy.

[e-sabbath]

Biff, not exactly true: There's a case where the (CIA?) was getting all the telegraph traffic exiting the US, and possibly all the telegraph traffic period going through the major switches.


The bit about all the telephone calls period goes back to the 60s or so, and the NSA used it selectively to give American companies advantages.

My source is "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford, as I read it five years ago. I've heard confirming details by paying attention to the news now and again over time.

[Biff Starbuck]

Wouldn't that be like... alot of information?

How is that possible? :confused:

Haven't you seen Enemy of the State????

What are you, some kind of skeptic or something? ;)

[Biff Starbuck]

Biff, not exactly true: There's a case where the (CIA?) was getting all the telegraph traffic exiting the US, and possibly all the telegraph traffic period going through the major switches.


The bit about all the telephone calls period goes back to the 60s or so, and the NSA used it selectively to give American companies advantages.

My source is "Body of Secrets" by James Bamford, as I read it five years ago. I've heard confirming details by paying attention to the news now and again over time.

Just to clarify, I was not trying to say whether or not what I called "pro-active" data mining was taking place. I was just saying that's not what I had in mind.

I am familiar with press reports about the ATT case, as well as those about "Able Danger."

I actually have "Body of Secrets" on my bookshelf, but haven't made it that far down my stack of unread books yet. :)

[ponderingturtle]

Technoextreme,

Using spy-satellites to spy on American Citizens from space is a gross-violation of the fourth-Amendment... No unreasonable search and seizures.

INRM

We need to arrest all news helicopters. Blatant invasion of privacy that.

[GreNME]

That is a good point. I guess it depends though on how you define data mining. I had in mind wiretaps and what might be considered retro-active data mining, where the cops would go back after the fact and for example pull all of a suspect's past phone calls. I think that is very effective, and can be relatively well targeted on one suspect or group.

Except what is being done isn't targeted. It's more widespread and haphazard. Also, working backward doesn't do much to prevent a crime. There's a huge difference in methodologies and practices between prevention and investigation after-the-fact. Prevention requires a lot more in the way of lightning-fast heuristics and pattern-finding skills to identify potential targets, whereas investigation after-the-fact requires more in the way of a thorough, methodical examination of data down to minutae. There is overlap between the two, but the main focuses for each are quite different.

What could be called pro-active data mining, where counter-terrorism agents sift through trillions of records, trying to find a pattern to identify as yet unknown terrorist suspects is a much more difficult task. I think you raise valid points both about efficacy and privacy. And in some ways, society must balance how much privacy they are willing to give up against how effective the data mining is at catching terrorists and criminals. If the program is ineffective, I think most people would be less tolerant of giving up some of their privacy.

I don't think most people will be inclined to look into the degree of efficacy as much as those who already have to know about security and monitoring practices. I tend to feel that most people want to know "what level of threat is there?" before making a decision on how much privacy they feel comfortable giving up, which is already an ideal I personally cannot abide. I recognize it, I just don't like it or agree with it. One reason I disagree is because some federal agencies have a habit of maintaining an inflated sense of urgency to justify their existence-- how many times since 2002 has the threat level been below orange on the DHS page? I don't know if there are places that keep track, but as far as I am aware the answer is "never." That sets our intelligence agencies up for a scenario where they are faced with the same dilemma as the Boy Who Cried Wolf if there does come a time when their action is required and required quickly. Once again, this is an example of why I think these deep-reaching practices as a standard procedure in our intelligence is going to hamper the efficacy of the individuals trying to track down the "bad guys" in a given case.

Note: this is actually a spill-over from my major complaints about Rumsfeld as well. The idea that spreading out our resources across multiple technological catch-alls is an irrational and flawed approach when dealing with a finite number of personnel, no matter how much recruitment or hiring numbers go up. It is a waste of money, it adds significantly wasted time, and it not only provides little to no benefit but in a lot of ways actually hampers the efficiency of prior operations. It's as if for the last six years our government agencies have been placed under the control of more and more 'business consultants' or something.*

* no offense to the consultants who may post here.

[INRM]

I think the Supreme Court should uphold the 4th amendment to prevent the government from spying on us as a whole.

IR imaging technology can see through stuff. If that's allowed, other technology that can see through houses can be used. With that said, the government can spy on every single house they want, look for incriminating evidence, then tell some person to phone in an anonymous tip, the cops go in, and bingo. True it's fruit of the poisonous tree... but how are you going to prove it? You're going to say-- the government saw through my house and told some guy to phone it in? They'd call you a raving lunatic and probably make a bunch of tin-foil hat jokes.

And the person accused/convicted doesn't have to be a hardened-criminal. The government may just not like the way he "excercizes his first-amendment rights". Perhaps he said some stuff that made Bush or Cheney look bad, or exposed a confidential government program (Secret means it could endanger the very existance of the country if it was leaked, Confidential means it could prove to be a major embarrassment if it was leaked)... they could look through everything and find one incriminating item in his house, or what have you and they could put him away. For excercizing his "first amendment rights".

Regardless of what argument you want to make -- fact that such technology can so grossly breach the 4th amendment beyond virtually any reasonable degree is alarming.


INRM

[GreNME]

IR imaging technology can see through stuff. If that's allowed, other technology that can see through houses can be used. With that said, the government can spy on every single house they want, look for incriminating evidence, then tell some person to phone in an anonymous tip, the cops go in, and bingo. True it's fruit of the poisonous tree... but how are you going to prove it? You're going to say-- the government saw through my house and told some guy to phone it in? They'd call you a raving lunatic and probably make a bunch of tin-foil hat jokes.

If you think IR technology is that good, than yeah, I'd say you need more tin-foil. That's not how IR works, and IR isn't very effective past a few substances and up to a certain depth. Heck, you honestly have more to worry about with wireless technology-- your cordless phone, wireless internet, laptop computer, and more-- being about to be breached and monitored relatively easily with current technology. Sure, there are things you can do to prevent that as well, but how many people have wrapped their homes in a faraday cage to prevent the leaky signals?

I don't disagree with you a lot on principle, but as I already pointed out in an earlier post, there isn't a whole lot of privacy out there unless you get yourself almost completely off the grid. I don't mean just from some government agents, either. They just have better toys than most people do. The trick isn't about achieving a specific level of privacy, the trick is to maintain a specific level of secure behaviors, and for the most part people seem unwilling to take a lot of the extra 'inconvenient' steps to mainstream such practices, and in the meantime service providers are campaigning to keep from being liable for breaches and wanting to ignore provider neutrality in communications. There are a lot of things 'wrong' about the level of private security in our daily lives and operations, but less of them have to do with the government overstepping its bounds than you might think. In a lot of ways they are just taking advantage of the weaknesses and loopholes that have been known by various groups of people for at least 20 years (more depending on the communications systems).

[Dr Adequate]

Nope. It's not. Your standing out in the open so in reality it doesn't work. The government could follow you. It isn't illegal. They can take pictures of you and follow you. It isn't illegal. Can they follow you into your back yard and take pictures of you, or would that be illegal without a warrant?

[GreNME]

Can they follow you into your back yard and take pictures of you, or would that be illegal without a warrant?

That depends on how much of your backyard is in "plain sight" or not. They can't trespass, but if their subject is in "plain sight" then there is a degree of legal allowance. The trouble is, I don't know whether "plain sight" applies to viewing from the sky.

[Biff Starbuck]

(snipped)
One reason I disagree is because some federal agencies have a habit of maintaining an inflated sense of urgency to justify their existence-- how many times since 2002 has the threat level been below orange on the DHS page? I don't know if there are places that keep track, but as far as I am aware the answer is "never." That sets our intelligence agencies up for a scenario where they are faced with the same dilemma as the Boy Who Cried Wolf if there does come a time when their action is required and required quickly. Once again, this is an example of why I think these deep-reaching practices as a standard procedure in our intelligence is going to hamper the efficacy of the individuals trying to track down the "bad guys" in a given case.

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/editorial_0844.shtm

It looks like the threat level bounces back and forth between yellow and orange.

The flip side of the crying wolf problem is human nature to get used to anything, and to forget about persistent threats. If you have the sword of Damocles always hanging over your head, you generally forget about it to some extent and go back to living your life. To some extent, it is the job of those agencies like DHS to remind people the threat of a mass casualty terrorist attack is still very real. Never mind the fact there are so many possible means of attack, that it is impossible to prevent every conceivable threat.

IMHO it is also a CYA response by the government; "Don't say we didn't warn you, we told you it was orange out there." For a bureaucrat, there is much more risk career-wise and liability-wise to say "it is safe" than to hedge his bets and say, "it's dangerous out there." If you are wrong about the fact it was safe, you get fired and sued. If you are wrong about saying it was dangerous, you cost the public some extra tax dollars, but nobody got hurt.

To put the best possible spin on the warnings, proving the effectiveness of preventative measures is like proving a negative. Can we do surveys with al Queda members and ask them if they were planning an attack, but then they saw the level went from yellow to orange and extra cops were standing around the subway where the attack was planned? Distinguishing between effective deterrence and a lack of threat is very hard to do. It is much easier to figure out why we were attacked than why were weren't.

I have not read Bruce Schneier's book, Beyond Fear (http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html), but it looks like it might be a good examination of the trade-offs of security against loss of rights, privacy, and expense. If we cannot prevent every possible attack, how do we prioritize where to best use our resources? I would include the patience and tolerance of the public as one of those resources.

[Biff Starbuck]

Can they follow you into your back yard and take pictures of you, or would that be illegal without a warrant?

That depends on how much of your backyard is in "plain sight" or not. They can't trespass, but if their subject is in "plain sight" then there is a degree of legal allowance. The trouble is, I don't know whether "plain sight" applies to viewing from the sky.

Assuming you are not in the act of committing the crime or escaping from one, then as GreNME pointed out, the police cannot trespass onto your property. But as your question illustrates, you have a greater expectation of privacy in your backyard, especially if it is fenced, than your unfenced front yard. If the door-to-door salesmen and milkman can walk up to your front door and knock, so can the policeman. If you ask them to leave, they would have to, unless they happened to see evidence of a crime in plain view when they were at your front door. For example, your wife's mother calls because she is concerned about your wife, the police knock on your door and see through the window next to the front door a body on the floor. At that point, they can stay.

If the police are in a public place, where they could still see you, then it would be legal to watch you walk around in your back yard. For example if you had a house on a corner where they could look over the fence see you. It would also generally be legal if your neighbor let the police stand in his yard and look at you through the fence. Basically, if you are somewhere where you can reasonably be expected to be seen by a neighbor or passerby, the police can be there too. In the US, generally the airspace over your house above a reasonable height is public space. And if public airplanes and helicopters can fly over your property and see in your backyard, so can the police. If you are a private person, you can always build a barn in your backyard.

To complicate matters, is the concept of "curtilage." Even if you don't have a fence around your house, the courts have held you have an expectation of privacy around your house. While it might be reasonable for a policeman to walk up to your door and knock, without reasonable suspicion, it would be hard to defend walking up and looking in all the windows on the front of your house. Sure, a neighbor could do it, but you would probably think he was a peeping tom. For that different level of expected privacy, it is one thing to look through a window in a front door, but something else to go up and look in other windows. For the same reason, the courts would probably say that flying a helicopter over your house 1000 meters up is more reasonable than hanging a camera down from the helicopter down to a few meters off the ground. Even if the helicopter has a good telephoto camera like the news helicopters, being 1000 meters away feels less invasive of someone's personal space than dangling a camera down on a wire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo

[Dr Adequate]

That depends on how much of your backyard is in "plain sight" or not. They can't trespass, but if their subject is in "plain sight" then there is a degree of legal allowance. The trouble is, I don't know whether "plain sight" applies to viewing from the sky. If you need a ladder and a pair of binoculars to see it, is it in "plain sight"?

I'm guessing not, and a fortiori, if you need a spy satellite ...

[GreNME]

If you need a ladder and a pair of binoculars to see it, is it in "plain sight"?

I'm guessing not, and a fortiori, if you need a spy satellite ...

Nope, definitely not allowable by law. However, even for a private investigator, if you are in an apartment that has a view of an open backyard of someone else's, many states consider that a reasonable 'plain sight' scenario, depending on how one happened to be in that apartment and the methods used to gain that line-of-sight.

Spy satellites, on the other hand, are a different story. That totally depends on where you are and I don't know that all backyards in all states in the Union are looked at as having the same protection of privacy.