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?
We can argue the merits of the surveillance itself for days, but the lack of public disclosure should be troubling to everyone.
The only place you should expect privacy is INSIDE your house.
Depends on the resolution. People expect to have privacy behind a privacy fence.
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?
Are there fixed cameras looking over your privacy fence?
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.
I think clandestine oligarch funded surveillance absent democratic approval to be a bad thing.
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.
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?
Beats me. Are they doing something illegal?
I suspect we'll find out relatively soon.
That's what oversight is supposed to determine.
police morphing into intelligence agencies without transparency or accountability? what could go wrong?
From the catalog [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.Harris' Stingrays also provide 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.
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.
[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 -- 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.
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 like Sparta and Argotek, along with its partnership with Northrop Grumman. (It also -- like other purveyors of surveillance/intelligence tech -- is less than discriminate as to who it sells to. Its customer list 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 do ents, 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.
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.
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.
I'm not a libertarian.
Federal, state, local govt's...the "people" have plenty of say in how they are policed/surveiled.
Who you voting for Fuzzy?
3rd party.
That is easy to tell.
Not in this case which was my point.
local PDs don't.
One step closer to a telescreen in your house.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
