Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by harry ashburn » Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:42 pm
by elfismiles » Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:42 am
by elfismiles » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:45 pm
Documents Reveal US Marshals Using Spy Drones
Program has remained secret for seven years
Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Feb 28, 2013
Documents obtained by the ACLU have revealed that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance.
The documents, available on the ACLU website, were released via a Freedom of Information Act request.
The rights groups says that although the Marshals Service admitted it had found 30 pages of information pertaining to its use of drones, it only actual handed over two, which were heavily redacted, containing only two short paragraphs of visible information.
Under the heading “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Man-Portable (UAV) Program,” an agency document overview states:
“USMS Technical Operations Group’s UAV Program provides a highly portable, rapidly deployable overhead collection device that will provide a multi-role surveillance platform to assist in [redacted] detection of targets.”
A further document reads:
“This developmental program is designed to provide [redacted] in support of TOG [Technical Operations Group] investigations and operations. This surveillance solution can be deployed during [multiple redactions] to support ongoing tactical operations.”
An LA Times report earlier this month revealed more, stating:
“In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Marshals Service tested two small drones in remote areas to help them track fugitives, according to law enforcement officials and documents released to the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act. The Marshals Service abandoned the program after both drones crashed.”
Expressing doubt that these details cover the full scope of the Marshals’ drone use, ACLU says it is “surprising” that what was purportedly a “a small-scale experiment” still remains secret after seven years.
“As drone use becomes more and more common, it is crucial that the government’s use of these spying machines be transparent and accountable to the American people. All too often, though, it is unclear which law enforcement agencies are using these tools, and how they are doing so.” a statement on the ACLU website reads.
“We should not have to guess whether our government is using these eyes in the sky to spy on us.” the statement continues.
ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump added that “Americans have the right to know if and how the government is using drones to spy on them.”
“Drones are too invasive a tool for it to be unclear when the public will be subjected to them.” Crump added. “The government needs to respect Americans’ privacy while using this invasive technology, and the laws on the books need to be brought up to date to ensure that America does not turn into a drone surveillance state.”
There are currently several bills on the table at the state and national level to reign in the use of drones, and not without justification.
The FAA recently released an updated list of domestic drone authorizations, showing more than 20 new drone operators, and bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012.
After Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization last year, requiring the FAA to permit the operation of drones weighing 25 pounds or less, observers predicted that anything up to 30,000 spy drones could be flying in U.S. skies by 2020.
As we reported in December, thousands of pages of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) documents newly released under the Freedom Of Information Act have revealed that the military, as well as law enforcement agencies, are already extensively flying surveillance drones in non-restricted skies throughout the country.
In addition, information via news items, Department of Homeland Security press releases, and word of mouth has made it apparent that the Department of Homeland Security is overseeing predator drone flights for a range of local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.
Last October, the DHS announced in a solicitation that it would be testing small spy drones at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, signaling that the devices will be used for “public safety” applications in the near future.
Much larger drones are already being used in law enforcement operations across the country. The most infamous case involved the Brossart family in North Dakota, who were targeted for surveillance with a Predator B drone last year after six missing cows wandered onto their land. Police had already used the drone, which is based at Grand Forks Air Force Base, on two dozen occasions beforehand.
Plans to roll out drones by law enforcement agencies in Washington State, Virginia, California and New York have recently met with stern opposition.
As we have previously reported, some police departments have expressed a willingness to arm drones with rubber bullets and tear gas.
Indeed, drone lobbyists are now actively seeking approval for drones to be employed for “lethal force” within the United States. Drone industry insiders recently seized on the recent Christopher Dorner standoff with police, suggesting that lives would have been saved had UAVs been deployed. The lobbyists cynically suggested that privacy advocates were to blame for the deaths and severe injuries of police, because they have acted to block drone deployment by law enforcement.
Eerie industry ads also recently emerged that depicted DHS funded surveillance drones spying on private gun sales as if they were some sort of shady criminal or terroristic activity.
Recently released FAA documents obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting revealed that the FAA gave the green light for surveillance drones to be used in U.S. skies despite the fact that during the FAA’s own tests the drones crashed numerous times even in areas of airspace where no other aircraft were flying.
The documents illustrate how the drones pose a huge public safety risk, contradicting a recent coordinated PR campaign on behalf of the drone industry which sought to portray drones as safe, reliable and privacy-friendly.
Critics have warned that the FAA has not acted to establish any safeguards whatsoever, and that congress is not holding the agency to account.
FAA documents recently obtained and released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation have confirmed that the roll out of domestic unmanned drones will, for the most part, be focused solely on the mass surveillance of the American people. In a report, EPIC recently noted:
With some exceptions, drone flights in the U.S. have been all about developing and testing surveillance technology. The North Little Rock Police Department, for instance, wrote that their SR30 helicopter-type drone “can carry day zoom cameras, infrared cameras, or both simultaneously.”
The Miami-Dade Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety have employed drones capable of both daytime and nighttime video cameras, and according to the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Certificate of Authorization (COA) paperwork, their drone was to be employed in support of “critical law enforcement operations.”
However, the FAA didn’t just rubber stamp all drone requests. For example, the Ogden Police Department wanted to use its “nocturnal surveillance airship [aka blimp] . . . for law enforcement surveillance of high crime areas of Ogden City.” The FAA disapproved the request, finding Odgen’s proposed use “presents an unacceptable high risk to the National Airspace System (NAS).”
Another report released recently, by the Congressional Research Service found that ”the prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues.”
“Police officers who were once relegated to naked eye observations may soon have, or in some cases already possess, the capability to see through walls or track an individual’s movements from the sky,” the report notes. “One might question, then: What is the proper balance between the necessity of the government to keep people safe and the privacy needs of individuals?”
The “ability to closely monitor an individual’s movements with pinpoint accuracy may raise more significant constitutional concerns than some other types of surveillance technology,” CRS says.
“Unless a meaningful distinction can be made between drone surveillance and more traditional forms of government tracking,” the report notes, “existing jurisprudence suggests that a reviewing court would likely uphold drone surveillance conducted with no individualized suspicion when conducted for purposes other than strict law enforcement.”
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the biggest union of law officials in the US,issued a stark warning about increased drone use. The union released guidelines calling for a reassessment of the potential widespread use of aerial drones for domestic policing.
In another recent development, a prominent private investigator operating out of New York and Texas noted that anyone engaging in any large scale protest, is now subjected to scanning by dronesthat skim their personal information from their cell phones.
Despite all these facts, close to half of Americans indicated recently that they are in favour of police departments deploying surveillance drones domestically.
http://www.infowars.com/documents-revea ... py-drones/
by justdrew » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:50 pm
"Organizations like the EFF and ACLU have been raising the alarm over increased government surveillance of U.S. citizens. Legislators haven't been quick to respond to concerns of government spying on citizens. But Texas legislators are apparently quite concerned that private citizens operating hobby drones might spot environmental violations by businesses. Representative Lance Gooden has introduced HB912 which proposes: 'A person commits an offense if the person uses or authorizes the use of an unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture an image without the express consent of the person who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image. ('Image' is defined as including any type of recorded telemetry from sensors that measure sound waves, thermal, infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other conditions.)' Can you foresee any unintended consequences if this proposal becomes law?"[/i]
Another reader notes that New Hampshire has introduced a similar bill: "Neal Kurk, a Republican member of New Hampshire's House of Representatives knows that those drones present a growing privacy concern, and in response has introduced a bill that would ban all aerial photography in the state. That is, unless you're working for the government. The bill, HB 619-FN (PDF), is blessedly short, and I suggest reading the whole thing for yourself." Here's part of the bill: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground."
by seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:18 pm
How Does the U.S. Mark Unidentified Men in Pakistan and Yemen as Drone Targets?
by Cora Currier
ProPublica, March 1, 2013, 7 a.m.
Earlier this week, we wrote about a significant but often overlooked aspect of the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen: so-called signature strikes, in which the U.S. kills people whose identities aren’t confirmed. While President Obama and administration officials have framed the drone program as targeting particular members of Al Qaeda, attacks against unknown militants reportedly may account for the majority of strikes.
The government apparently calls such attacks signature strikes because the targets are identified based on intelligence “signatures” that suggest involvement in terror plots or militant activity.
So what signatures does the U.S. look for and how much evidence is needed to justify a strike?
The Obama administration has never spoken publicly about signature strikes. Instead, generally anonymous officials have offered often vague examples of signatures. The resulting fragmentary picture leaves many questions unanswered.
In Pakistan, a signature might include:
Training camps…
Convoys of vehicles that bear the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run. – Senior American and Pakistani officials, New York Times, February 2008.
“Terrorist training camps.” – U.S. Diplomatic Cable released by Wikileaks, October 2009.
Gatherings of militant groups or training complexes. – Current and former officials, Los Angeles Times, January 2010.
Bomb-making or fighters training for possible operations in Afghanistan…. a compound where unknown individuals were seen assembling a car bomb. – Officials, Los Angeles Times, May 2010.
Travel in or out of a known al-Qaeda compound or possession of explosives. – U.S. officials, Washington Post, February 2011.
Operating a training camp… consorting with known militants. – High-level American official, The New Yorker, September 2011.
A group of guys…
Large groups of armed men. – Senior U.S. intelligence official, Associated Press, March 2012.
Groups of armed militants traveling by truck toward the war in Afghanistan. – Administration officials, Washington Post, April 2012.
The joke was that when the C.I.A. sees “three guys doing jumping jacks,” the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp. – Senior official, May 2012.
“The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40.” – Former Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter, Daily Beast, November 2012.
“Armed men who we see getting into pickup trucks and heading towards the Afghanistan border or who are in a training exercise.” – Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Council on Foreign Relations, January 2013.
Officials have characterized the intelligence that goes into these strikes as thorough, based on “days” of drone surveillance and other sources — and said that apparently low-level people may still be key to an organization’s functioning. In 2010, an official told the Los Angeles Times that the CIA makes sure “these are people whose actions over time have made it obvious that they are a threat."
In Yemen, signature strikes are reportedly bound by stricter rules. Officials have often cited the necessity of a plot against Americans:
Clear indication of the presence of an al-Qaeda leader or of plotting against targets in the United States or Americans overseas. — Administration officials, Washington Post, April 2012.
“Individuals who are personally involved in trying to kill Americans… or intelligence that…[for example] a truck has been configured in order to go after our embassy in Sanaa.” — Senior administration official, Washington Post, January 2013
These strikes are not supposed to target “lower-level foot soldiers battling the Yemeni government,” U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal. A White House spokesman said last summer that the U.S. “[has] not and will not get involved in a broader counterinsurgency effort” in Yemen.
But experts say some strikes in Yemen do appear to have been aimed at local militants. In Pakistan, in addition to low-level militants who might be involved in the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. has sometimes hit those who posed a threat to the Pakistani government.
As we detailed, signature strikes have also been criticized by human rights groups and some legal observers because of the lack of transparency surrounding them, including on the number of civilians killed.
by 8bitagent » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:13 am
by elfismiles » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:52 am
by brekin » Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:13 pm
A Swarm of Nano Quadrotors
by elfismiles » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:10 am
brekin wrote:elfsmiles wrote:A Swarm of Nano Quadrotors
I'm constantly amazed that the science fiction things I dreamed about becoming reality as a kid are the very
same things that now as an adult have me scared shit less.
krull
by JackRiddler » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:24 am
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03 ... ns-us-soil
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil
—By Adam Serwer
| Tue Mar. 5, 2013 12:55 PM PST
* Drones: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know But Were Always Afraid to Ask
* Here's Why Obama Won't Say Whether He Can Kill You With a Drone: Because He Probably Can
* 8 Drones That Aren't Out to Kill You
* Can Police Be Trusted With Drones?
* Google-Funded Drones To Hunt Rhino Poachers
* Obama Targeted Killing Document: If We Do It, It's Not Illegal
* Drones Could Help Conserve Endangered Wildlife
Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.
"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."
Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.
Holder's answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such "extraordinary" circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president ordering the use of lethal military force inside the United States is "entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront," Holder wrote. Here's the bulk of the letter:As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.
The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
The letter concludes, "were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority."
In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that's exactly what was happening. "Any use of drone strikes or other premeditated lethal force inside the United States would raise grave legal and ethical concerns," says Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First. "There should be equal concern about using force overseas."
This post has been edited to include Paul's statement and the final line of Holder's letter.
by 82_28 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:01 am
The Federal Bureau of Investigation said Tuesday it is investigating an unidentified black drone an Alitalia pilot said he encountered while approaching John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The Flight #608 pilot said he saw the 3-foot-wide drone, with four propellers, at about 1,750 feet Monday, three miles before touching down.
Whether it was a hobbyist breaking the Federal Aviation Administration’s 400-foot-altitude rule or a real spy vessel from the Evil Empire is unknown. Either way, there’s a UFO out there and it came within 200 feet of the plane, the FBI said.
“The FBI is asking anyone with information about the unmanned aircraft or the operator to contact us,” said John Giacalone, the special agent in charge of the bureau’s New York field office. “Our paramount concern is the safety of aircraft passengers and crew.”
A Government Accountability Office report warned Congress last year that its push for drones to become commonplace in U.S. airspace fails to take into account privacy, security and even GPS jamming and spoofing. The GAO, Congress’ research arm, was responding to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, signed by President Barack Obama in February, which among other things requires the Federal Aviation Administration to accelerate drone flights in U.S. airspace.
Federal lawmakers last month introduced legislation regulating state and federal government use of unmanned drones (.pdf) in the United States. If adopted, the one-of-a-kind legislation would prohibit drones from being armed, and would demand that government agencies register drones and adopt privacy polices. What’s more, the proposal would allow drones to be used only in criminal matters, in which warrants would be required.
by elfismiles » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:32 pm
JackRiddler wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03 ... ns-us-soil
Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil
—By Adam Serwer
| Tue Mar. 5, 2013 12:55 PM PST
Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in "an extraordinary circumstance," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.
"The US Attorney General's refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening," Paul said Tuesday. "It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans."
Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama's pick to head the CIA, "until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil." Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that "the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so." Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul's question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.
by FourthBase » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:51 pm
by justdrew » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:15 pm
by FourthBase » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
