Baltimore PD: secret aerial surveilance exposed

[Winehole23]

Since the beginning of the year, the Baltimore Police Department had been using the plane to investigate all sorts of crimes, from property thefts to shootings. The Cessna sometimes flew above the city for as many as 10 hours a day, and the public had no idea it was there.


A company called Persistent Surveillance Systems (http://www.pss-1.com/), based in Dayton, Ohio, provided the service to the police, and the funding came from a private donor. No public disclosure of the program had ever been made.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baltimore-secret-surveillance/

[CosmicCowboy]

That's awesome.

I don't see why law abiding citizens would not want that.

[Trill Clinton]

i'm pretty sure the funding of this project cost quite a bit of coin. i wonder if the benefactor has donated as much into community programs for these communities as well.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why is that relevant?

[Trill Clinton]

why isn't it?

[CosmicCowboy]

why isn't it?

Because there is no rational connection between the two. Why is it relevant what other charities or causes the donor supported? He chose to support that one which seems to have a great benefit to the community.

I would think you would support a completely colorblind enforcement tool.

[Fabbs]

That's awesome.

I don't see why law abiding citizens would not want that.

[Trill Clinton]

Because there is no rational connection between the two. Why is it relevant what other charities or causes the donor supported? He chose to support that one which seems to have a great benefit to the community.

I would think you would support a completely colorblind enforcement tool.

okay i see your point.

[SnakeBoy]

Why is Winehole is always so worried that someone might be watching him?

[z0sa]

That's awesome.

I don't see why law abiding citizens would not want that.

Yeah guys. It's just big brother watching over...er out for us.

:lol today's conservatives

[Winehole23]

Why is Winehole is always so worried that someone might be watching him?Not at all.

I'm a man of the 21st century, but I can remember the 20th. It was not always the case that privacy was a chimera or that concern to preserve it was naive.

Vive la difference.

[Winehole23]

Conservatives used to tend the altar liberty and the individual; now their credo is collective security under the panoptic, all-protecting eye of the police.

[Winehole23]

It's a symptom of the withering of freedom and individuality that posters like CC see privacy as not worth saving and indeed, as something completely insubstantial and whimsical.

[Winehole23]

“By design, these devices are indiscriminate and operate across a wide area where many people may be present,” said Richard Tynan, a technologist at Privacy International, of the gear in the Cobham catalogue. Such “indiscriminate surveillance systems that are not targeted in any way based on prior suspicion” are “the essence of mass surveillance,” he added.https://theintercept.com/2016/09/01/leaked-catalogue-reveals-a-vast-array-of-military-spy-gear-offered-to-u-s-police/

[Winehole23]

4th Amendment?

investigation based on particularized suspicion?

[Winehole23]

or cringing submission to the police power and a paternalistic state?

it's not a "pick your own adventure" book. you have to speak up for the one you want and try to convince people it's important. hence the OP.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think a credible tool to catch murderers and criminals is a good thing.

i'm not scared of being a single pixel on a screen as I go about my legal business.

[Winehole23]

the ends justify the means.

moral relativism, contempt for the US Constitution.

it's like you've assumed the justice system only catches bad guys.

how naive.

[Winehole23]

you like the police power as a proxy for racial vendetta.

when you say "murderers" and "criminals," you mean black people, right?

[Winehole23]

the modern constabulary has its roots in the slave patrol. how little things change.

[ElNono]

4th Amendment?

investigation based on particularized suspicion?

Not to mention who controls what information gets swept under the rug... I get the feeling some of those tapes will get lost when it's convenient to the PD...

[CosmicCowboy]

you like the police power as a proxy for racial vendetta.

when you say "murderers" and "criminals," you mean black people, right?

go fuck yourself, asshole.

[Winehole23]

did I hit a nerve?

[Winehole23]

you need to take a look in the mirror, CC.

you've shown your ass many times here, on a public bulletin board.

I can only imagine what kind of opinions you feel comfortable airing in private.

[Winehole23]

Not to mention who controls what information gets swept under the rug... I get the feeling some of those tapes will get lost when it's convenient to the PD...or the police union...

[DarrinS]

There are cameras everywhere. Not including millions of fellow citizens who are ready to upload content at a moments notice. But thanks for shedding light on this super secret invasion of privacy. Lol

[ElNono]

There are cameras everywhere. Not including millions of fellow citizens who are ready to upload content at a moments notice. But thanks for shedding light on this super secret invasion of privacy. Lol

I gather by "everywhere" you mean where there's no expectation of privacy? A plane flying over innocent people's properties doing surveillance without probable cause or a warrant is at least contentious with the expectation of privacy part, isn't it?

[Spurminator]

We can argue the merits of the surveillance itself for days, but the lack of public disclosure should be troubling to everyone.

[DarrinS]

I gather by "everywhere" you mean where there's no expectation of privacy? A plane flying over innocent people's properties doing surveillance without probable cause or a warrant is at least contentious with the expectation of privacy part, isn't it?

The only place you should expect privacy is INSIDE your house.

[Wild Cobra]

That's awesome.

I don't see why law abiding citizens would not want that.

Depends on the resolution. People expect to have privacy behind a privacy fence.

[Wild Cobra]

I think a credible tool to catch murderers and criminals is a good thing.

i'm not scared of being a single pixel on a screen as I go about my legal business.

If that's all it is.

How large of a path are they covering with those 193 megapixel cameras? Just how clear is a person?

[Wild Cobra]

There are cameras everywhere. Not including millions of fellow citizens who are ready to upload content at a moments notice. But thanks for shedding light on this super secret invasion of privacy. Lol

Are there fixed cameras looking over your privacy fence?

[Wild Cobra]

I gather by "everywhere" you mean where there's no expectation of privacy? A plane flying over innocent people's properties doing surveillance without probable cause or a warrant is at least contentious with the expectation of privacy part, isn't it?

I think such unwarranted surveillance should be illegal. I'm OK with traffic cams, and other cameras with fixed views in public. Just stay out of my back yard where I have a six foot privacy fence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think a credible tool to catch murderers and criminals is a good thing.

i'm not scared of being a single pixel on a screen as I go about my legal business.

I think clandestine oligarch funded surveillance absent democratic approval to be a bad thing.

[ElNono]

The only place you should expect privacy is INSIDE your house.

Debatable. ie: trespassing includes your whole property, not just the inside of your house. People that purposely, legally cover areas of their property from public view (with walls, trees, etc) should also build roofs due to police intrusiveness?

IMO, this goes to the core of probable cause. We're all potentially guilty parties until told otherwise by a roaming camera? That's not how this is supposed to work.

[DarrinS]

Are there fixed cameras looking over your privacy fence?

Do satellites count?

[ElNono]

Do satellites count?

At the very least, the FBI and NSA have to answer to a (secret) court for surveillance. Where's the oversight on this?

[DarrinS]

At the very least, the FBI and NSA have to answer to a (secret) court for surveillance. Where's the oversight on this?


Beats me. Are they doing something illegal?

[ElNono]

Beats me. Are they doing something illegal?

I suspect we'll find out relatively soon.

[Spurminator]

Beats me. Are they doing something illegal?

That's what oversight is supposed to determine.

[Winehole23]

police morphing into intelligence agencies without transparency or accountability? what could go wrong?


From the catalog (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3038406/TCS-CATALOG.pdf) [PDF]:



Cobham designs and manufactures Active Cellular Surveillance Systems. These are designed for tactical operations in short to medium range missions and provide the user with intelligence to help identify and monitor criminal activities, criminals and terrorists.



They can also be employed for humanitarian operations. Solutions are typically used for:



• Counter terrorism and organized crime operations, identifying and monitoring suspects, exploring target contact details and intercepting outgoing voice calls and SMS messages.



• Situational control, enabling identification and network denial of cellular devices through ‘intelligent’ jamming, including creating controlled areas of coverage.



• Suspect geo-locating capabilities.



Cell emulators, direction finders and coverage analysis provide ideal applications for: suspect identification, exploration of target’s contact networks, suspect monitoring and search and rescue. In-country support contracts are available to ensure effective maintenance and support of the cellular technologies.
Harris' Stingrays also provide (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151029/15514632671/documents-pried-out-dojs-hands-confirm-stingray-devices-can-be-used-to-intercept-communications.shtml) the same interception capabilities, but every law enforcement agency that has been forced to discuss their use of IMSI catchers denies using these features, including the FBI. But the fact that this capability is in the hands of law enforcement is still a concern.



[ACLU attorney Nathan] Wessler said “the note at the top of the page about the ability to intercept calls and text messages (in addition to the ability to geo-locate phones)” is of particular interest, because “domestic law enforcement agencies generally say they don’t use that capability.” Also remarkable to Wessler is the claim that cellphone users can be “tracked to less than 1 [meter] of accuracy.”



Just as concerning is the fact that law enforcement has routinely deployed this equipment using only pen register orders (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150103/14461029590/baltimore-pd-hides-its-stingray-usage-under-pen-register-order-argues-theres-really-no-difference-between-two.shtml) -- locating suspects using legal paperwork that's only supposed to cover numbers dialed by a phone, not its current location. With these features built in, law enforcement agencies have access to wiretap capabilities at pen register prices, in terms of the Fourth Amendment.


Also of note are the variety of IMSI catchers offered by Cobham, which include products with enough power to grab as many connecting phones as a full-blown cell tower. Others offer the capability to deny service to all phones within their reach or, conversely, grab up to 200 unique cell phone identifiers a minute. Cobham also sells body-worn companion trackers for use with its larger cell tower spoofers, designed to be worn covertly to better narrow down the location of devices.


Cobham also offers cities complete surveillance systems with IP mesh networks for securely transmitting footage, data, etc. to control centers and cameras that do more than simply watch -- they also tag, track and locate suspects. Add-ons include thermal cameras and ground sensors.



https://i.imgur.com/s7TLG99.png
And there's so much more. A plethora of covert surveillance cameras which Cobham will gladly shove into anything from a street light cover to a smoke detector (or a splice boot, wall clock, utility pedestal…). Many of the product descriptions contain a bit of military op lingo -- which makes sense considering Cobham's history of acquiring US defense and intelligence contractors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobham_plc#History) like Sparta and Argotek, along with its partnership with Northrop Grumman. (It also -- like other purveyors (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150705/21205731557/hacking-team-hacked-documents-show-company-sold-exploits-spyware-to-un-blacklisted-governments.shtml) of surveillance/intelligence tech -- is less than discriminate as to who it sells to. Its customer list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobham_plc#Products) includes Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.) What could make more sense than selling repurposed war gear to law enforcement agencies which seemingly view themselves as both military forces and intelligence agencies?


Finally, like all good leaked documents, this catalog comes with a warning to unauthorized readers.

This catalog is the property of Cobham Tactical Communications and Surveillance and must be returned upon request.

[Winehole23]

The potential is the problem. Surveillance systems like these are prone to both feature creep and mission creep. If they're already being deployed secretly, the chances for abuse move from merely "probable" to "almost inevitable." McNutt may be extremely open about his tech and its capabilities, every law enforcement agency that has made use of it has been the polar opposite. And when private donors skirt procurement processes and other red tape by purchasing surveillance tech for law enforcement agencies, a certain amount of accountability disappears.


If an agency feels it's counterproductive to gauge public sentiment before deploying more surveillance tech, the least it can do is keep them informed about upcoming changes. But the Baltimore PD did none of that. It simply took its expensive surveillance gift and put it to work.

[SnakeBoy]

I think clandestine oligarch funded surveillance absent democratic approval to be a bad thing.

The govt has democratic approval to surveil our asses

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The govt has democratic approval to surveil our asses

Patriot Act doesn't permit Baltimore to surveil it's citizens.

I love how you like Gestapo tactics. How libertarian of you.

[SnakeBoy]

Patriot Act doesn't permit Baltimore to surveil it's citizens.

I love how you like Gestapo tactics. How libertarian of you.

I'm not a libertarian.

Federal, state, local govt's...the "people" have plenty of say in how they are policed/surveiled.

[SnakeBoy]

Who you voting for Fuzzy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who you voting for Fuzzy?

3rd party.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not a libertarian.

Federal, state, local govt's...the "people" have plenty of say in how they are policed/surveiled.

That is easy to tell.

Not in this case which was my point.

[Winehole23]

The govt has democratic approval to surveil our asseslocal PDs don't.

[Leetonidas]

One step closer to a telescreen in your house.

[z0sa]

Some very telling responses from board "conservatives" in this thread.

[Winehole23]

Some very telling responses from board "conservatives" in this thread.enhancing the power of the police and the state against free individuals is what kind of conservatism?

Worshipping force, poo-pooing privacy and our form of government.

The blase radicalism of board conservatives continues to amaze.

[Winehole23]

Too cowardly for freedom, they pray to the paternalistic power of the state for safety.

What could go wrong?

[ElNono]

It's not surprising, tbh... they always held LEOs all the way up to the military above big bad government.

That is, until big black Kenyan took on the 2nd amendment warriors. It's a difficult time for conservatives.

[SnakeBoy]

local PDs don't.

Indirectly they do


enhancing the power of the police and the state against free individuals is what kind of conservatism?

Worshipping force, poo-pooing privacy and our form of government.

The blase radicalism of board conservatives continues to amaze.


Too cowardly for freedom, they pray to the paternalistic power of the state for safety.

What could go wrong?

That's quite a meltdown over me simply pointing out that the American people have the govt they have been voting for. Is there a Whig party candidate this election or are going with Gary Johnson again?

[SnakeBoy]

3rd party.

Johnson or Stein?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Johnson or Stein?

Stein is an imbecile.

[SnakeBoy]

Stein is an imbecile.

So Johnson then?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So Johnson then?

Likely. Viable third party is one of my top 3 issues.

[SnakeBoy]

I think such unwarranted surveillance should be illegal. I'm OK with traffic cams, and other cameras with fixed views in public. Just stay out of my back yard where I have a six foot privacy fence.

Should it be illegal for a 7' tall cop to walk by your 6' fence?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Should it be illegal for a 7' tall cop to walk by your 6' fence?

Taking pictures every day? Yup.

[SnakeBoy]

Taking pictures every day? Yup.

What if he walks by every day but isn't taking pictures...is that ok?

[SnakeBoy]

Is patrolling an area with a police helicopter a violation of your rights? No pictures, just an officer looking out the window.

[Trill Clinton]

ElNono doing work.

[Winehole23]

That's quite a meltdown over me simply pointing out that the American people have the govt they have been voting for.You're hardly the only poster I was replying to, and by that reasoning any action of any duly elected government is legitimate.

Piffle.



Is there a Whig party candidate this election or are going with Gary Johnson again?Don't know and I didn't vote for him last time. I'll probably not vote the top of the ballot this time around.

[Winehole23]

Is patrolling an area with a police helicopter a violation of your rights? No pictures, just an officer looking out the window.hardly an apt analogy. in this case, they are taking pictures.

[SnakeBoy]

hardly an apt analogy. in this case, they are taking pictures.

So it's the pictures that are the problem? Just trying to figure out what has you so upset.

Is it a violation of your privacy for a cop to patrol your neighborhood on foot while wearing a body camera?

[CosmicCowboy]

hardly an apt analogy. in this case, they are taking pictures.

In this case a person is literally one pixel. A dot on the screen.

You paranoia is interesting.

[SnakeBoy]

Don't know and I didn't vote for him last time. I'll probably not vote the top of the ballot this time around.

Oh I thought you were promoting him last time, guess I misremembered.

[Winehole23]

I thought I would for a minute, but Gary Johnson didn't survive close scrutiny.

[Winehole23]

In this case a person is literally one pixel. A dot on the screen.

You paranoia is interesting.It's the principle of the thing. Mass surveillance isn't the job of the local PD and they damn sure oughtn't be doing it without some kind of oversight.

Your nonchalance is telling. It's like you trust LE bureaucracies unquestioningly.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's the principle of the thing. Mass surveillance isn't the job of the local PD and they damn sure oughtn't be doing it without some kind of oversight.

Your nonchalance is telling. It's like you trust LE bureaucracies unquestioningly.

Yeah, I trust them not to be jacking off on a one pixel picture of a babe by a swimming pool.

I also see the benefit. I remember a string of incidents recently locally where a gang of robbers were hitting restaurants and they were getting more and more brazen and ended up killing some kid that worked at one of them. I absolutely see the value of the police being able to zoom in on an armed robbery location after the fact and see where the vehicle came from and where the vehicle went after the robbery. Same with rapists, murderers, drive by shootings, etc. The point is to identify bad guys and catch them.

[Winehole23]

if you think the police only catch bad guys, or that information gleaned from surveillance is only used for legitimate LE purposes, you are very naive.

[CosmicCowboy]

if you think the police only catch bad guys, or that information gleaned from surveillance is only used for legitimate LE purposes, you are very naive.

If you think they are after law abiding citizens you are very paranoid.

[CosmicCowboy]

Tell me Winehole...why would law enforcement want to waste time spying on you if you aren't doing anything wrong?

[Winehole23]

Tell me Winehole...why would law enforcement want to waste time spying on you if you aren't doing anything wrong?Cops have been known to abuse databases to find things out about spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends, exes, rivals, fellow policemen and people who complain. Assuming they wouldn't with high tech stuff is jejune.

Whether the people who get swept into the net are guilty or innocent, all deserve the presumption of innocence and due process of law, wouldn't you agree?

[Winehole23]

fwiw, I don't think anyone is spying on me.

it's the lack of oversight and constitutionally guaranteed due process that bothers me.

[CosmicCowboy]

Cops have been known to abuse databases to find things out about spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends, exes, rivals, fellow policemen and people who complain. Assuming they wouldn't with high tech stuff is jejune.

Whether the people who get swept into the net are guilty or innocent, all deserve the presumption of innocence and due process of law, wouldn't you agree?

So because the occasional policeman would break the law and abuse the technology, you want to deny the 99.999% of the honest police a legitimate tool to fight violent crime?

The technology doesn't convict anyone...it just provides evidence. The presumption of innocence isn't violated at trial, but the evidence could certainly be used to prove guilt after due process.

[Winehole23]

So because the occasional policeman would break the law and abuse the technology, you want to deny the 99.999% of the honest police a legitimate tool to fight violent crime?First of all we don't know if the tool works or if it has been used in a legitimate way, so you're begging the question there. Second of all, you're purposely distorting my point -- I already said that it's the lack of oversight and probable due process problems that bother me.

We do know this was done without telling elected officials -- the secrecy is troublesome, since the whole city is being surveilled.

[Winehole23]

Tell me Winehole...why would law enforcement want to waste time spying on you if you aren't doing anything wrong?I dunno. You might want to ask the mosques in NY that the NYPD spied on for 14 years without generating a single lead, or catching any bad guys.

Much of that was due process free. Rights of citizens brazenly violated for years on end without any corresponding benefit to public safety.

[Winehole23]

So because the occasional policeman would break the law and abuse the technology, you want to deny the 99.999% of the honest police a legitimate tool to fight violent crime?do you want to deny the victims of police corruption, rare as they may be, due process for the sake of mere expediency?

[CosmicCowboy]

do you want to deny the victims of police corruption, rare as they may be, due process for the sake of mere expediency?

police that break the law should be prosecuted.

I do not believe in denying honest police valid tools to fight crime because of a statistically insignificant potential for abuse.

[DisAsTerBot]

police that break the law should be prosecuted.

I do not believe in denying honest police valid tools to fight crime because of a statistically insignificant potential for abuse.

or you know, the constitution

[Sportcamper]

Cosmic I sent you a PM...It took me almost 15 minutes to remember how to do that…:lol
Best Wishes…

[Wild Cobra]

hardly an apt analogy. in this case, they are taking pictures.

And saving them for farther study.

[Wild Cobra]

In this case a person is literally one pixel. A dot on the screen.

You paranoia is interesting.

They have some pretty high resolution stuff out there. Did you see an article someplace that said a person is only one pixel?

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, I trust them not to be jacking off on a one pixel picture of a babe by a swimming pool.

I also see the benefit. I remember a string of incidents recently locally where a gang of robbers were hitting restaurants and they were getting more and more brazen and ended up killing some kid that worked at one of them. I absolutely see the value of the police being able to zoom in on an armed robbery location after the fact and see where the vehicle came from and where the vehicle went after the robbery. Same with rapists, murderers, drive by shootings, etc. The point is to identify bad guys and catch them.

Then increase the number of public cameras that don't peek in peoples back yards.

[boutons_deux]

The essential, eternal assumption is that ALL power will be abused, and that's true of surveillance powers.

And we know some, many?, police are corrupt, for sale (to PIs, BigCorp, etc).

A TX racist billionaire to pay for surveillance on Baltimore knitters should never have been accepted by the cops, who don't even try, or fucking worry about appearances anymore. They live and work above for themselves and against the citizenry.

The militarized cops, the police/surveillance state, are out of control, immune, untouchable, unstoppable.

Typical rightwingnut assholes here who HATE govt have no problem supporting the police state in all its crimes.

[CosmicCowboy]

or you know, the constitution

How is it unconstitutional? Be specific.

[CosmicCowboy]

They have some pretty high resolution stuff out there. Did you see an article someplace that said a person is only one pixel?

Did you actually read the article being discussed? It was in there.

[SnakeBoy]

Did you actually read the article being discussed? It was in there.

He never reads anything before commenting on it.

I proved it to him once and it was pretty funny (to me)

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186962&page=4&p=5489020&viewfull=1#post5489020

Now he won't talk to me anymore :depressed

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What if he walks by every day but isn't taking pictures...is that ok?

He is not using equipment to aid him being about to see over like optics and airplanes then sure.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is patrolling an area with a police helicopter a violation of your rights? No pictures, just an officer looking out the window.

City councils approve that type of thing.

[SnakeBoy]

City councils approve that type of thing.

Well if your complaint is just that the PD didn't go to the city council before testing/evaluating the technology then I agree they should have. Then again it they haven't been doing for long and they did tell the mayor at some point before the public found out. I don't think the PD intended for it to be some super secret program that the public never found out about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well if your complaint is just that the PD didn't go to the city council before testing/evaluating the technology then I agree they should have. Then again it they haven't been doing for long and they did tell the mayor at some point before the public found out. I don't think the PD intended for it to be some super secret program that the public never found out about.

that is some naive bullshit.

[SnakeBoy]

that is some naive bullshit.

that is some paranoid bullshit

[FuzzyLumpkins]

that is some paranoid bullshit

when it comes to undemocratic secret government action you bet your ass.

[spurraider21]

I think a credible tool to catch murderers and criminals is a good thing.

i'm not scared of being a single pixel on a screen as I go about my legal business.
how you personally feel is irrelevant when it comes to potentially impeding other people's 4th amendment rights

[CosmicCowboy]

how you personally feel is irrelevant when it comes to potentially impeding other people's 4th amendment rights

:lmao

Seriously?

Good luck making a 4th amendment case.

[spurraider21]

:lmao

Seriously?

Good luck making a 4th amendment case.
didnt say it necessarily was, i said potentially. there are also potential due process issues. generally, though, courts have ruled that low flying aircraft/surveillance aren't 4th amendment searches as long as there isn't something like thermal imaging. if the camera used on the surveillance drones are particularly advanced, it could enter a grey area

the way you personally feel about it doesn't really change the public policy issues surrounding it

the same way somebody might have "no issue" with the government looking into bank records as they please. you're ok with it? oh, good for you then

[ElNono]

In this case a person is literally one pixel. A dot on the screen.

You paranoia is interesting.

Good enough to track such pixel around to see where he went, stopped, for how long, etc. That's been classified as surveillance for a long time now.

And yes, there's a difference between a cop following you and an automated system. In United States v. Jones (2012) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)), the SCOTUS ruled on this already, determining that automated systems like GPS trackers are indeed a search under the 4th amendment and require a warrant. (and trespass was part of it, which also goes to the core of this too)

And that was a case where a warrant was issued. In this particular case, there's not even a warrant.

[ElNono]

I can only imagine the outrage if this system was used to track gun owners, tbh...

[spurraider21]

Good enough to track such pixel around to see where he went, stopped, for how long, etc. That's been classified as surveillance for a long time now.

And yes, there's a difference between a cop following you and an automated system. In United States v. Jones (2012) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)), the SCOTUS ruled on this already, determining that automated systems like GPS trackers are indeed a search under the 4th amendment and require a warrant. (and trespass was part of it, which also goes to the core of this too)

And that was a case where a warrant was issued. In this particular case, there's not even a warrant.
there was no warrant in jones... the entry paragraph on wiki is wrong on det

well, they had a warrant but it expired before they ever attached the device, so the action was warrantless, technically

they ruled that because the GPS was considered a "trespass" it automatically qualified as a "search." since they "searched" him without a warrant, it was considered illegal

that being said, if the search warrant was valid, the GPS would have been permitted. the evidence was thrown out in court because they ruled it a search and there was no warrant

[Trill Clinton]

how you personally feel is irrelevant when it comes to potentially impeding other people's 4th amendment rights

good point


:lmao

Seriously?

Good luck making a 4th amendment case.


unfortunately, this is true too. the supreme course has shown they do not allow the 4th amendment to interfere with the prosecution of the war on drugs. florida v bostick and terry v ohio come to mind.

[ElNono]

there was no warrant in jones... the entry paragraph on wiki is wrong on det

they ruled that because the GPS was considered a "trespass" it automatically qualified as a "search." since they "searched" him without a warrant, it was considered illegal

Regardless, while it's not exactly the same scenario, it's close enough, IMO. Equating 7 foot tall cops or a police chopper looking down to an ongoing, automated aerial recording system is simply not the same thing.

I remember one of the arguments the government advanced in Jones was that there was no difference between the tracker and a police car following the guy. The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction.

[spurraider21]

Regardless, while it's not exactly the same scenario, it's close enough, IMO. Equating 7 foot tall cops or a police chopper looking down to an ongoing, automated aerial recording system is simply not the same thing.

I remember one of the arguments the government advanced in Jones was that there was no difference between the tracker and a police car following the guy. The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction.
made edits, see above

the difference is that a police car following a guy wouldn't be considered a search under the 4th amendment... so with or without a warrant, that action is fine

but a GPS was considered a trespass which automatically qualified it as a search under the 4th amendment, which is why a valid warrant was required for them to use that evidence.

the entire case would have been moot if they acted timely while the warrant was active

[spurraider21]

but ElNono (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8054) it is correct that aerial surveillance (helicopters, cameras) are generally not considered searches and dont require warrants... unless they have thermal vision or other extreme technology that is not available to the general public, in which case it would be considered intrusive and require a search warrant for use

Dow Chemical v US addresses the aerial surveillance/photograph question

Kyllo v US addressed the thermal imaging question

[ElNono]

but ElNono (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8054) it is correct that aerial surveillance (helicopters, cameras) are generally not considered searches and dont require warrants... unless they have thermal vision or other extreme technology that is not available to the general public, in which case it would be considered intrusive and require a search warrant for use

Dow Chemical v US addresses the aerial surveillance/photograph question

Kyllo v US addressed the thermal imaging question

Actually, I was reading that there's also a certain altitude set to be considered part of property (and thus trespassing). I don't remember off the top of my head, but I was reading about it with the whole drone drama lately.

Regardless, I'm sure surveillance like this will be challenged in court. Again, the core of this issue really touches upon expectation of privacy and probable cause. We're not talking natsec here, which has it's own rules and oversight, but a PD...

[ElNono]

Dow Chemical v US addresses the aerial surveillance/photograph question

Note this on that case though:

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.

[spurraider21]

Note this on that case though:

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.
good point, didn't remember that part :tu

[SnakeBoy]

Note this on that case though:

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.

These cases might be of interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo


Actually, I was reading that there's also a certain altitude set to be considered part of property (and thus trespassing). I don't remember off the top of my head, but I was reading about it with the whole drone drama lately.

Regardless, I'm sure surveillance like this will be challenged in court. Again, the core of this issue really touches upon expectation of privacy and probable cause. We're not talking natsec here, which has it's own rules and oversight, but a PD...

I'm sure it will, at least you seem to have returned to the world of the reasonable here instead of Winehole's "OMG anyone who isn't instantly outraged is to cowardly for freedom" bullshit.

[Winehole23]

The govt has democratic approval to surveil our assesyour local PD wasn't elected. they don't have democratic approval. in this case, they didn't even tell the city fathers.

[Winehole23]

police that break the law should be prosecuted.

I do not believe in denying honest police valid tools to fight crime because of a statistically insignificant potential for abuse.Unlike the case of terrorism, I don't think you can show it's statistically insignificant.

Can you?

[Winehole23]

Also, you continue to insist the tool is valid.

Has that been shown, or is that more reason by fiat?

[Winehole23]

Good enough to track such pixel around to see where he went, stopped, for how long, etc. That's been classified as surveillance for a long time now.

And yes, there's a difference between a cop following you and an automated system. In United States v. Jones (2012) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_(2012)), the SCOTUS ruled on this already, determining that automated systems like GPS trackers are indeed a search under the 4th amendment and require a warrant. (and trespass was part of it, which also goes to the core of this too)

And that was a case where a warrant was issued. In this particular case, there's not even a warrant.Valid tool to catch bad guys.

Shut up about the US Constitution!

[SnakeBoy]

your local PD wasn't elected. they don't have democratic approval. in this case, they didn't even tell the city fathers.


Already stated they should have but it wasn't the grand conspiracy you seem to think it was.


At a news conference on Wednesday, Police Department spokesman T.J. Smith repeatedly insisted to reporters that the test program, which began in January, was not a secret.

"It's not a secret spy plane," Smith said as reporters pressed him for an explanation for the lack of information. "There's no conspiracy to not disclose it."

The test program lets the department evaluate the effectiveness of a potential tool in the department's crime-fighting arsenal, he said.

The program tests products and services from Persistent Surveillance Systems. Phase 1, Smith said, included 100 hours of the plane flying over the city in January and February. The program is now in Phase 2, working toward 200 hours that began in mid-June. Phase 2 will end in a few weeks; the department "doesn't have a plan to move forward beyond that," Smith said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/surveillance-plane-secret-baltimore-police-41629517


Phase 2 died an early death.

[Winehole23]

I didn't say it was a grand conspiracy, and I don't care if phase 2 died an early death, this is fucking bullshit and shouldn't be allowed.

[Winehole23]

The Baltimore PD has harmed its own prestige and legitimacy. So much the worse for them and any PDs who wish to emulate them.

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't say it was a grand conspiracy, and I don't care if phase 2 died an early death, this is fucking bullshit and shouldn't be allowed.

That's debatable...no matter how much you stomp your feet.

[Winehole23]

it's a debate for sure. not sure why you think others should shut up.

do we owe it to the police to zip it and not rock the boat, in your view?

[Winehole23]

what's your gripe, SnakeBoy?

[SnakeBoy]

what's your gripe, SnakeBoy?

Not really a gripe but I just think you are overreacting on this topic calling people who disagree too cowardly to be free, etc. I know privacy/over-reaching in the name of security is a big issue to you and I agree with you on many of those issues (post 911 reaction for example). On this one, I'm on the fence from what little we know about the actual technology and how it may have been used. I'm not telling you to shut up but it is debatable whether this type of surveillance is constitutional. Does that make me scared of freedom?

[Winehole23]

how is it constitutional for the Baltimore PD to run mass surveillance without permission or oversight?

[Winehole23]

and leaving that completely aside, why do you think it's a good idea?

[Winehole23]

and leaving that completely aside, do you really see no downside for personal liberty and due process?

[Winehole23]

NYPD surveilled whole mosques and Muslim individuals for 14 years and got bupkis.

Was that worth it?

[Winehole23]

Constitutionally, halal?

[SnakeBoy]

how is it constitutional for the Baltimore PD to run mass surveillance without permission or oversight?

That's not what I'm talking about. I've already said they made a mistake starting the evaluation without going to the council members first. They should have known better than to treat this like it was the same as testing some new type of handcuffs that were donated for evaluation. Beyond that, I think the technology is probably constitutional (assuming it only does what they claim). Courts will decide someday.

[Winehole23]

if targeted surveillance doesn't work, why should we trust mass surveillance?

[Winehole23]

That's not what I'm talking about. That's what they did and that's what I'm talking about.

What they did shouldn't be allowed.

Do you still disagree? We're talking about Baltimore PD and what they did, and not some future hypothetical.

[Winehole23]

If you're talking about some hypothetical, you can stipulate whatever you want, but you can't do that about the case under discussion.

[Winehole23]

do you think mass surveillance without democratic oversight is a good idea, and if so, why?

[SnakeBoy]

That's what they did and that's what I'm talking about.

What they did shouldn't be allowed.

Do you still disagree? We're talking about Baltimore PD and what they did, and not some future hypothetical.

So you don't think that the technology shouldn't be allowed just the way Baltimore PD decided to test it?

Okay

Baltimore PD - bad PD bad...I agree
The Technology - maybe good, maybe constitutional

[ElNono]

These cases might be of interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo

Neither of those cases involved automated surveillance systems, which is a point I noted before. Much like attaching a GPS tracker is not the same as a police car following a person around, even if the motive is the same in both instances.

There are arguably differences between particular, individual cases and a systematic dragnet. Even if, in arguendo, it's ultimately legal, what's alarming in this particular case is the complete lack of oversight. Even in the GPS tracker case there was a (misused) warrant involved. There's a reason why such warrants are needed, it's part of the whole oversight thing.

[ElNono]

That's not what I'm talking about. I've already said they made a mistake starting the evaluation without going to the council members first. They should have known better than to treat this like it was the same as testing some new type of handcuffs that were donated for evaluation. Beyond that, I think the technology is probably constitutional (assuming it only does what they claim). Courts will decide someday.

I don't think the council members matter here. If you're potentially trampling on someone's rights, you need a court order. A council can't override anybody's constitutional rights.

[Winehole23]

So you don't think that the technology shouldn't be allowed just the way Baltimore PD decided to test it?

Okay

Baltimore PD - bad PD bad...I agree
The Technology - maybe good, maybe constitutionalI'm criticizing what they did, not what they used, though I'd be interested to hear your argument for a legitimate use, just so I could see what you think it would look like.

[ElNono]

good point, didn't remember that part :tu

We therefore regard the area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home"—what our cases call the curtilage—as "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." ... That principle has ancient and durable roots. Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is "as old as the common law," ... so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the "curtilage or homestall," for the "house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants." ... This area around the home is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically," and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened."

Florida v. Jardines (2013) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines)

There's different prongs to determine what a curtilage really is. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage.

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't think that the technology shouldn't be allowed just the way Baltimore PD decided to test it?

Okay

Baltimore PD - bad PD bad...I agree
The Technology - maybe good, maybe constitutional
It would be so much cheaper to put cameras on the streets. Those high resolution cameras are not cheap, then there is the cost of flying.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think the council members matter here. If you're potentially trampling on someone's rights, you need a court order. A council can't override anybody's constitutional rights.

This is the key here. We accept in public, we are not in a private environment. However, these cameras see beyond normal public view.

[Winehole23]

you can't see a wiretap either, but you need a warrant for that. what's the difference?

[SnakeBoy]

Neither of those cases involved automated surveillance systems, which is a point I noted before. Much like attaching a GPS tracker is not the same as a police car following a person around, even if the motive is the same in both instances.

There are arguably differences between particular, individual cases and a systematic dragnet. Even if, in arguendo, it's ultimately legal, what's alarming in this particular case is the complete lack of oversight. Even in the GPS tracker case there was a (misused) warrant involved. There's a reason why such warrants are needed, it's part of the whole oversight thing.

Well I’m not going to pretend to be a constitutional scholar but I assume this district judge knows what he’s talking about...


Yesterday Griesbach adopted a recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan dated October 9. That recommendation said that the DEA's warrantless surveillance did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires that warrants describe the place that's being searched.
"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," Callahan wrote.

http://www.cnet.com/news/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/


So if all this plane does is the same thing police in helicopters can do then that can be viewed as a substitute for ordinary surveillance.



I don't think the council members matter here. If you're potentially trampling on someone's rights, you need a court order. A council can't override anybody's constitutional rights.

It hasn't been deemed unconstitutional by the courts. The courts don't rule on things before they've been done.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm criticizing what they did, not what they used, though I'd be interested to hear your argument for a legitimate use, just so I could see what you think it would look like.

Assuming it works well in real time...

911 call of a shooting at Bob's liquor store, some dude zooms in on the liquor store and see 2 people jump in a white car and speed away, dude tells patrol car possible suspects are head west on xyz street, officer heads off in pursuit, then dude tells officer they just pulled into the garage at 123 whatever street, officer goes to 123 whatever street. Is that not legitimate use and the same as what a police helicopter might do.

Or the next day they can look at the recording and go to 123 whatever street. Police can already review traffic cams etc. and pursue the leads.

Or how about frantic Ma & Pa call 911 and say poor little Betsy just got snatched from the front yard by an evil black man, put up an Amber Alert! So dude looks at the recording an sees Betsy was never in the yard at the time they said. So he backs up the recording and sees that 4 hours earlier Ma & Pa lugged some bags to the driveway, tossed them in the trunk, then drove to a nearby pond and tossed them in the pond. So dude tells officers who go to the pond and find poor chopped up Betsy neatly stuck in the bags. Ma & Pa get busted. Were Ma & Pa's rights violated because their driveway was private property and police aren't allowed to look down upon it with a camera?

What does the abuse & violation of privacy look like to you in this case?

[SnakeBoy]

We therefore regard the area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home"—what our cases call the curtilage—as "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." ... That principle has ancient and durable roots. Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is "as old as the common law," ... so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the "curtilage or homestall," for the "house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants." ... This area around the home is "intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically," and is where "privacy expectations are most heightened."

Florida v. Jardines (2013) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines)

There's different prongs to determine what a curtilage really is. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage.

That case involves police actually going onto private property without a warrant, not just looking at private property from a distance.

[Wild Cobra]

That case involves police actually going onto private property without a warrant, not just looking at private property from a distance.

Do you have any morals?

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you have any morals?

That's pretty fucking funny coming from the flaglot stalker.


I did something for the first time and wish I used more caution in the process. I used MySpace to look up matches for dating. I had a few interesting returns, replies, and dinners out of the deal. However, I had one experience I regret. One person I found that I started chatting with, I really liked. She appears to be my intellectual equal, and make more money than I do. After going though her photo's for the second time, I noticed one of her new house had the number clearly visible. That alone wouldn't be much, but her city was Gresham Oregon which is maybe only 75,000 population. It was a flag lot which there aren't many of. The photos clearly indicated they were clearly taken within a short time of the summer solstices and close to noon, because if the angle of the shade. Because of this, I knew the orientation of her driveway was in the general direction of north. It was obvious she would be easy to find. I wanted to warn her this was a photo to remove, so I did. Since people have a hard time believing my capabilities, I went to Google Maps satellite view, and found her house in under ten minutes. Probably three or four. I then mailed her with the request she remove the picture with the house number and sent the satellite link showing her property too.

[DarrinS]

For those that can't sleep at night

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/07/remove-google-street-view_n_5563939.html

[Wild Cobra]

That's pretty fucking funny coming from the flaglot stalker.

Wow.

You just moved into the pathetic zone. That was how many years ago? And people take to wrong, and love to twist.

We disagree on some things, but never in my life, did I think you were as pathetic as Fuzzy et. al.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow.

You just moved into the pathetic zone. That was how many years ago? And people take to wrong, and love to twist.

We disagree on some things, but never in my life, did I think you were as pathetic as Fuzzy et. al.

Might have been a cheap shot, but accusing someone of not having any morals just because you disagree on a police policy was in the same ballpark.

[ElNono]

Well I’m not going to pretend to be a constitutional scholar but I assume this district judge knows what he’s talking about...

So if all this plane does is the same thing police in helicopters can do then that can be viewed as a substitute for ordinary surveillance.

The SCOTUS has overturned previous lower-courts decisions on this matter. The cases I've quoted are actually pretty recent (Jardines is such a case, dated post that one).

There's multiple prongs, such as distance, etc, that need to be taken into account in order to decide what's a curtilage of a house. What's not in doubt is that such curtilage is protected by the 4th.


It hasn't been deemed unconstitutional by the courts. The courts don't rule on things before they've been done.

But the point is that the only entity that's going to determine whether it's constitutionally sound or not is a court of law. All sorts of legislative bodies write unconstitutional laws that eventually are struck down. The lack of a court decision on constitutionality doesn't make things automatically constitutional. Plenty of laws survive for a time until they're struck down. They're not unconstitutional the moment the court ruled, they were unconstitutional from the start.


That case involves police actually going onto private property without a warrant, not just looking at private property from a distance.

Immaterial to the actual decision: Curtilage, that is, an area surrounding the property is protected by the 4th amendment and the citizens enjoy an expectation of privacy in it. How far that extends, etc, is a different matter, but I suspect it's difficult for an aerial wide-angle camera to make the decision of what's protected or not.

[Wild Cobra]

Might have been a cheap shot, but accusing someone of not having any morals just because you disagree on a police policy was in the same ballpark.

You're defending Snakeboy?

OK...

His whole thing was not caring about what amounts to spying.

[CosmicCowboy]

You're defending Snakeboy?

OK...

His whole thing was not caring about what amounts to spying.

Seriously, did you read the article?

This is what a screen shot from the video looks like:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baltimore-secret-surveillance/img/feat_surveillance36-5.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Seriously, did you read the article?

This is what a screen shot from the video looks like:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baltimore-secret-surveillance/img/feat_surveillance36-5.jpg

No, they have you fooled. That is only a 0.8 megapixel sample reduced image. Their 192 megapixel camera has far more resolution than that!

[CosmicCowboy]

You are making shit up now WC. That was a screen shot of the analysts console. That's the resolution they are working with.

[SnakeBoy]

Do you have any morals?

Well I wouldn't refuse to let a black surgeon operate on me just because he's black...does that count as a moral?

[SnakeBoy]

I don't stalk women online...is that a moral WC?

[Wild Cobra]

You are making shit up now WC. That was a screen shot of the analysts console. That's the resolution they are working with.

And were they zoomed out to full detail? Do you know that as fact?

[Wild Cobra]

You are making shit up now WC. That was a screen shot of the analysts console. That's the resolution they are working with.

Do you know for a fact that image isn't zoomed in all the way?

You don't, do you...

The images are not single pixels. At one point I did say it depends on the resolution. My questioning Snakeboy's morality comes from the silly notions of a 7 ft. cop, and what followed. My error is not making it clear by just quoting any of his posts.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't stalk women online...is that a moral WC?

I don't either.

Like a ignorant arrogant child, you don't realize that words have meaning. Pointing out someone is open for possible stalking is not stalking. My mistake was the way I presented the problem.

I suggest you look up the dictionary and legal definition of stalking. You really expose your stupidity, ignorance, etc. when you keep bearing false witness after being corrected of the facts.

[CosmicCowboy]

And were they zoomed out to full detail? Do you know that as fact?

Geez WC, just read the article.

[Wild Cobra]

Geez WC, just read the article.

I did.

Early on I mentioned the megapixels.

I don't trust what people say.

If I have a camera that can see a person smiling 10 miles away, but I don't want to revel all the capabilities of something, I might say I can see them smile 1 mile away.

It isn't a lie, but it is the complete set of facts either.

Military fighter jets... Say for example they say mach 2.7+... They don't tell you the actual fastest they can go. That's classified. Maybe they go mach 4.3...

I can't believe that you, of all people trust what someone else that you don't even know, writes for an article.

[DarrinS]

192 megapixels to cover a 30 mile area -- that's still pretty grainy

I'd suggest watching the video in the link WH posted

[Wild Cobra]

192 megapixels to cover a 30 mile area -- that's still pretty grainy

I'd suggest watching the video in the link WH posted

Are you suggesting that you know for certain, that they don't have a zoom lens setup?

You know... variable coverage capability?

That would be pretty stupid if they didn't.... Such simple technology...

OK, they disclosed they can cover a 30 square mile area. Does explicitly mean they cannot zoom in to a 1 square mile area or less?

[SnakeBoy]

I did.

Early on I mentioned the megapixels.

I don't trust what people say.

If I have a camera that can see a person smiling 10 miles away, but I don't want to revel all the capabilities of something, I might say I can see them smile 1 mile away.

It isn't a lie, but it is the complete set of facts either.

Military fighter jets... Say for example they say mach 2.7+... They don't tell you the actual fastest they can go. That's classified. Maybe they go mach 4.3...

I can't believe that you, of all people trust what someone else that you don't even know, writes for an article.

Maybe they can travel at light speed. If your just going to make shit up in your head why set the bar so low?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe they can travel at light speed. If your just going to make shit up in your head why set the bar so low?

Wow.

I'm not making anything up.

I'm pointing out what is unknown, and probable.

[spurraider21]

I don't trust what people say.
is this your bullshit blanket excuse to believe what you want and discredit what you dont like to hear?

[Wild Cobra]

is this your bullshit blanket excuse to believe what you want and discredit what you dont like to hear?

Discredit what?

Are you saying it is impossible that they are not under reporting the capabilities?

Please now...

Care to hang your reputation on that unknown?

[CosmicCowboy]

They might have secret x-ray vision too. What the hell was I thinking?

[clambake]

lol

[spurraider21]

Discredit what?

Are you saying it is impossible that they are not under reporting the capabilities?

Please now...

Care to hang your reputation on that unknown?
if you go by the "i dont believe what people say" as an absolute... then there is no legitimacy to government or anything they've ever done. its impractical. doesn't mean you have to buy everything as an absolute truth, but its an irresponsible stance to hold as a generality

[Winehole23]

technology is outrunning 4th Amendment protections. people can say technology is neutral all they want, bottom line, improvements render us more vulnerable to government.

the notion that only the guilty have something to fear is naive; we're governed by men and women and not angelic heroes.

[Winehole23]

same goes for the police. they do an honorable job, but they ain't sainty-saints either. assuming they are is asking for trouble.

[Winehole23]

road to hell, good intentions:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-dakota-becomes-first-us-state-to-legalise-use-of-armed-drones-by-police-10492397.html

[Wild Cobra]

They might have secret x-ray vision too. What the hell was I thinking?

Unlikely. I see you cant take this serious. Thermal is very expensive for low resolution. Ever see Flir's pricing? x-ray would be much higher yet.

[Wild Cobra]

the notion that only the guilty have something to fear is naive; we're governed by men and women and not angelic heroes.

One of the few things we agree on.

[clambake]

Unlikely. I see you cant take this serious. Thermal is very expensive for low resolution. Ever see Flir's pricing? x-ray would be much higher yet.

good stuff.

[CosmicCowboy]

good stuff.

:lol

SMH

[Wild Cobra]

good stuff.

God...

I would love to have a thermal camera. We use them at work, along with ultrasound probes.

Some people make great money with both!

[Winehole23]

Baltimore PD lied about "every aspect" of its spy plane


The Baltimore Police Department told the public and a federal appeals court that the surveillance images would only be stored for 45 days, that the planes would only be used for limited tracking of individuals to and from known crime scenes, and that the Aerial Investigation Research (AIR) program couldn’t be used (https://www.baltimorepolice.org/transparency/newtechnologyinitiatives) to gather identifying information like license plate numbers.



The Baltimore Police Department was lying, according to an audit from independent evaluators (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/nyu_policing_project_amicus_brief.pdf) hired by the city.

The ACLU and local activists are currently suing the BPD in an attempt to prevent the AIR program, which was a six-month pilot, from starting up again in Baltimore or anywhere else. In its court filings in that case, BPD made statements that “bear an insufficient resemblance to the reality of how AIR operates,” the auditors from New York University School of Law’s Policing Project wrote in an amicus brief to the court.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjpjqd/baltimore-police-lied-about-almost-every-aspect-of-its-spy-plane-program

[Winehole23]

Baltimore PD's Gun Trace Task Force is getting rekt by ongoing trials for corruption and for other crimes.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-gttf-rivera-charged-20200415-rntnu3xkzvavrg6b5xsmv2ck3q-story.html



1382835498859773953