
FBI operating fleet of surveillance aircraft flying over US cities - denzil_correa
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveillance-government-planes-cities
======
deathhand
> _The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it
> uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating
> new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could
> endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP
> declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names – as well as common
> addresses linked to the Justice Department – are listed on public documents
> and in government databases._

Glad to see AP still has gumption.

~~~
shit_parade2
If only that gumption extended to the US tax payer footing the bill to be
spied upon.

~~~
kenbellows
... are you suggesting that the entire US population refuse to pay any taxes
until surveillance issues are fixed? Because that's a terrible idea.

~~~
baddox
I wouldn't suggest that such a plan is remotely likely, but a massive
organized tax protest would be interesting and probably even beneficial.

~~~
istvan__
Totally agree. The first country where people do this will write history about
who is really in charge in a country.

~~~
ianstallings
That's already happened - December 16, 1773.

~~~
istvan__
That is slightly different but similar. I am expecting a sovereign country's
citizens to do something like that, as far as I know that did not happen yet.

------
jjwiseman
I've written up my findings (almost 100 aircraft, 17 front companies) and how
I reached them at [https://storify.com/jjwiseman/tracking-fbi-aerial-
surveillan...](https://storify.com/jjwiseman/tracking-fbi-aerial-surveillance)

~~~
jjwiseman
The surprising thing was how easy it was to do this. Really, all you had to do
was look: These planes seem to literally use (unencrypted, easily decoded)
transponder codes that mean "FBI surveillance", the public records show
company names that mostly fit a simple regex, and one of the front companies
even has the exact same address as the U.S. Dept of Justice.

~~~
god_bless_texas
JJ,

I love your research on this, with SDR Dongle.

I'm building up my ADS-B receiver with a NooTech SDR. One question, you talked
about capturing squawks with your SDR - did you try for ADS-B or do you know
if these aircraft employ it? This would give you location.

Kudos to you, man!

~~~
jjwiseman
Yes, I use dump1090 which can decode Mode S/ADS-B with or without location and
Mode A/C.

------
msane
I think this is our future, whether it's dystopian or not.

Technology is eventually going to make it impossible to really prevent
"Persistent aerial surveillance". What requires an expensive small blimp today
might become the size of a ping pong ball (or wide area flock of them) and
come out of a 3D printer tomorrow.

So who will be using such tech? Governments and private entities alike - we
can try to legislate against either but technology will probably overpower the
legislation quickly.

So what is the impact of this sort of technology? Maybe it's not all George
Orwell. Your bike was stolen on Third St at 1pm? Roll the video back or
forwards to know exactly where the thief is. Someone shot up a nightclub and
rushed out in a crowd? automated video analysis caught them.

Yes it sounds scary if it were a monopolized power, but eventually I don't
think government will be able to hold monopoly on it.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
I think it sounds scary anyway.

I mean, I'd know everything about you -- where you lived, where you shopped,
where you worked, where you ate out, where your friends lived, what you did
with your friends, when you did it, etc.

I could even get further than you might imagine: I probably have a really good
guess (>0.99) what you do at your work, given your activities outside of work
and the people you associate with.

I tell your boss when you lie about being sick, I tell your insurance how
often you do risky things when not driving, I tell your ex where she can find
you at the club.

This is the future you're presenting, and claiming that there's some upside.
On the contrary, I think humans can't handle it, and are literally going to
drive themselves insane with machines.

~~~
Symmetry
You think people can't handle it but it's actually pretty close to the way
most people lived before urbanization brought anonymity to the masses. Now,
technological changes might eliminate privacy which would be unprecedented but
it's anonymity that's historically weird, not its lack.

~~~
verbin217
Anonymity sure. We're talking about privacy. It's always been at least non-
zero available.

~~~
tonyhb
Live in a faraday cage. I'm only semi-joking; I think that it could be a
solution to your issue if you're _that_ concerned about it. Whatever the
outcome technology is going to be persistently ubiquitous.

~~~
mirimir
That's not necessary. Also, lack of emissions would attract attention, and so
be counterproductive. But using shielded equipment in a shielded room, that
would be prudent for private work.

------
diafygi
_> "Aircraft surveillance has become an indispensable intelligence collection
and investigative technique which serves as a force multiplier to the ground
teams," the FBI said in 2009 when it asked Congress for $5.1m for the
program._

Holy military state, Batman! It seems that the FBI has really taken to heart
the change in mission statement from "law enforcement" to "national
security"[1].

 _> The surveillance flights comply with agency rules, an FBI spokesman said.
Those rules, which are heavily redacted in publicly available documents, limit
the types of equipment the agency can use, as well as the justifications and
duration of the surveillance._

Given the duration and location of these aircraft, it's very hard to see how
these aren't an illegal search, given the past few years of judicial
rulings[2][3]. It's become very clear that collecting movement data, even if
that movement data is public, requires a warrant. No wonder the FBI wants to
keep a layer of fake companies between it and these planes. Also, if you do
collect wide area data for a specific target, can you keep the wide area data
for use later on for another purpose?

I volunteer for an organization[4] that works with cities to adopt privacy
policies regarding the data they collect, receive, and share. To date, our
privacy policies have mostly been focused on disclosing how local offices are
sharing local data (license plate readers, stingrays, etc.) with the feds, but
now it seems we need to add sections about disclosing incoming data feeds from
the feds.

[1]: [http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-
not...](http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not-law-
enforcement)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29)

[3]: [https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-
vargas](https://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-vargas)

[4]: [http://www.restorethe4th.com/](http://www.restorethe4th.com/)

~~~
rayiner
It falls squarely within California v. Ciraolo, which says there is no
expectation of privacy in anything visible from the air. It also common sense.
Any shmuck with a general aviation license can take up an ultralight and see
what he can see. So can the government.

Jones involved a trespass on the suspect's property. Totally different
situation.

~~~
shabble
Without knowing the details, it seems like they shouldn't really distil
'expectation of privacy' down a simple binary "could someone not breaking the
law observe them or not" test.

IMO, the efforts to which that hypothetical person would have to go should
influence just how much privacy a person could 'expect' to have. Otherwise why
do people bother putting up privacy fences around their garden, when anyone
could just fly over? Or hoist a camera on a stick?

The problem being that the more effort required to observe, the more confident
an ordinary person could presume to be unobserved.

When we have UAVs that can loiter around (in public airspace, of course)
random buildings and bounce laser microphones off the windows, along with
thermal imaging and gait detection of individuals at a price that is
affordable by average people, would that change 'expectation of privacy'?

As long as the tech is embargoed or ridicuously expensive, there's a distinct
skew where the government can afford it and Joe Shmuck The Reasonable
Individual can't.

In fact, the mere ability to continuously loiter for extended periods and make
recordings is probably beyond an individual who doesn't have refueling support
or additional friends in similarly equipped craft to change watches.

"If they _could_ , then we can, will, and do"

~~~
armorsmith42
The Illustrated Guide to the Law has some discussion of this question here:
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2201](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2201)

~~~
rayiner
Wow. That's great.

This panel explains why there is no 4th amendment protection of information
you store in the cloud:
[http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2210).

------
themartorana
When it was imagined, we called it "distopian" \- books were written and
immortalized, movies were made, warnings were served.

When it happened, there was barely a murmur.

~~~
denzil_correa
> When it was imagined, we called it "distopian"

I always though it was "dystopian" but your spelling made me check again.
Apparently, "distopia" is used in some romance languages like

Spanish -
[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distop%C3%ADa](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distop%C3%ADa)

Portuguese -
[http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia](http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia)

Italian -
[http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia](http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distopia)

~~~
themartorana
Neat. I didn't do that on purpose... I misspelled it, but I'll leave it since
you have a neat point.

------
suprgeek
Video/Cell surveillance with a Judges order by the FBI (a NON-FISA Judge - the
FISA ones are Rubber Stamps) is how the process is supposed to work.

The article raises two deeply troubling points:

1) That they operate without specific Judges orders - this means that they are
pretty much Dragnets sweeping up vast swathes of information indiscriminately.

2) They are used to help in "disturbances" (by presumably recording Video &
Cell info?). So even civil disobedience is prime target for these flights.

The combination points to a major overreach by the Feds. The temptation to use
all that info in one way or another (Parallel Construction for e.g.) is too
great. Needs ACLU & possibly EFF to sue & the courts to shutdown this crap.

------
thoward
To me it makes sense that the FBI needs a fleet of surveillance planes for
investigations. It also makes sense that these aircraft carry civilian livery
to be low-profile (same idea as an unmarked pursuit car).

What seems f-ked up are the shell companies. Why not come out and say "we have
surveillance planes; we need them for investigations; here's how much money
we've allocated in our budget to operate them."

The FBI shouldn't need to hide this.

~~~
jjwiseman
The FBI using front companies for aerial surveillance of suspects seems fine
to me; That's just doing their job of criminal investigation.

The worrying part is seeing their planes overhead for hours at a time, which
looks more like potential persistent surveillance, or a dragnet that sweeps up
hundreds or thousands of people into whatever video/cellphone recording
they're doing.

~~~
pdkl95
> doing their job of criminal investigation

That hasn't been the FBI's job for some time now. They joined the
"intelligence community" club and now claim is now about "national security".

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/05/fbi-drops-law-
enforcemen...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/05/fbi-drops-law-enforcement-
as-primary-mission/)

So why is it necessary to fly spy planes _domestically_ to protect "national
security". That would imply we've already been invaded... or their purpose is
something else entirely.

~~~
tedunangst
Having a primary function doesn't mean they don't have other functions as
well, such as criminal investigations.

------
bediger4000
How can an ordinary person tell if one of these spy planes is currently
overhead?

Is there some way to dink with them, similar to Matt Blaze's in-band
signalling vulnerabilities discovery(s)
([http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf](http://www.crypto.com/papers/wiretap.pdf))
? You know, use old phones that still have SIM cards, but have them try to
register constantly? I'm a bit vague on cellphone protocol details, so spare
me the nit picking, and get on with the revelations.

~~~
toufka
from u/jjwiseman

>DOJ/FBI surveillance aircraft often squawk 4414 or 4415 on their
transponders.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812)

~~~
cinquemb
I think this is a great thing about HN. Through the noise of the donate links
to this and that, others help propagate information how they are building
tools that could help decrease the asymmetry of the landscape/ increase
transparency surrounding these things in ways more grounded in realism.

Hak5 had a couple episodes dealing with getting set up with SDR and such to be
able to do this for yourself[0] that I didn't see covered in that thread which
might be useful for others as well.

[0] [http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1525](http://hak5.org/episodes/hak5-1525)

------
themeek
A host of interviews and discussions in Washington such as the Holder
interview on drone use in America and the legislation from the FAA on drones
highly suggests that large drone systems (ARGUS) will be permanently placed in
America's skys and that the use of predator drones on American citizens inside
American borders deemed to be a threat to national security would be proper
depending on official policy.

------
ninkendo
Haven't they always done this? They've always used surveillance vans parked
outside of suspect's houses with listening equipment, for example. They even
used fake company names on the sides of the vans. Why should we be surprised
they're using airplanes too?

~~~
higherpurpose
Because now they can spy on millions vs 1. I think that makes the difference.

~~~
linkregister
> Because now they can spy on millions

I didn't see that part of the article, can you link me to some resources for
the planes having that level of camera and computer vision technology?

~~~
awch
ARGUS-IS

"ARGUS is an advanced camera system that uses hundreds of cellphone cameras in
a mosaic to video and auto-track every moving object within a 36 square mile
area.

ARGUS is a form of Wide Area Persistent Surveillance that allows for one
camera to provide such detailed video that users can collect 'pattern-of-life'
data and track individual people inside the footage anywhere within the field
of regard."

[0] [https://youtu.be/QGxNyaXfJsA?t=51s](https://youtu.be/QGxNyaXfJsA?t=51s)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-
IS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARGUS-IS)

~~~
linkregister
So I did the deep dive of the ARGUS-IS wikipedia article. The majority of
sources were regarding the possibilities of such a system. The one
authoritative source, from fbo.gov, was an RFP. It appears that such
capability doesn't exist, though it is interesting that a government agency is
actively working toward the capability.

However, since you asserted that such a thing _could_ happen, your link
supports your point. I think it should have been qualified that the technology
doesn't exist yet in the interest of full disclosure.

~~~
awch
I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say.

Light googling indicates that this is an extant system that has been fitted to
aircraft since 2009:

"DARPA, working in partnership with the Army Night Vision and Electronic
Sensors Directorate, Air Force, Air Force Research Laboratory and National
Geospatial Agency, conducted its first test flights using the ARGUS system
last year [2009]."

The DoD indicates that the system was operationally deployed to Afghanistan in
Q1 2011. [0]

LLNL has an article describing the system's optics, technical specs, and their
work on processing the data streams it generates. [1]

BAE released an IR upgrade in 2010:

"BAE System's first flight tests of ARGUS-IR's predecessor, ARGUS-IS,
concluded last October aboard a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter." [2]

[0]
[http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62138](http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62138)

[1]
[https://str.llnl.gov/AprMay11/vaidya.html](https://str.llnl.gov/AprMay11/vaidya.html)

[2] [http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_028152/bae-systems-
wi...](http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_028152/bae-systems-
wins-499-million-contract-to-develop-on-board-processor-and-integrate-darpas-
argus-ir-nighttime-persistent-surveillance-system)?

~~~
linkregister
Thanks for the added info. I didn't do any googling; I limited my commentary
to the source you provided (I didn't look at the youtube video, that method
usually carries a low signal to noise ratio). The wikipedia article is light
on actual information about the ARGUS IS; the primary source is an article
with the title "drone nightmare" in it. Other advertised capabilities don't
exist yet. I will add your sources to the wikipedia article, they are much
better than what is there.

I don't think that it should be expected that I exhaustively comb search
engines to find support for your point; I think that it's reasonable that I
look solely at the source you gave me.

That said, I found the capabilities in your first (0th) source to be chilling.
That source definitely supports your point.

------
morgante
Honestly, unlike what the NSA is doing, this doesn't outrage me. Surveillance
aircraft only see what is visible from the air—primarily public spaces.

When I'm in a public space, I don't have any expectation of privacy. Heck, a
single private citizen intent on tracking my every move could easily "surveil"
me in this way.

If the FBI is only exercising techniques which a private citizen could deploy,
I really don't care. I fully expect that every minute I'm in public is being
documented—it's spying on private communications which really outrages me.

~~~
ojbyrne
"Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify
thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they are
not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics
cell towers into coughing up basic subscriber information, is rare."

~~~
morgante
It appears that they do, however, get a warrant before collecting information
via Stingrays.

------
ohitsdom
I feel like I'm not understanding the implications of this, because my
reaction is "meh". Can't the FBI fly helicopters now without a warrant? What's
different about this compared with past behavior? I guess I'd be more
interested to learn what equipment they have on the planes, because that can
greatly impact the work they are doing. I'm definitely concerned about drones
taking over this work with better tech, but I feel like I should be up in arms
about these flights and I'm not.

------
whoisthemachine
If you need to hide your surveillance behind fake companies, then you can
probably surmise that it will not be met with public approval.

------
skidoo
This isn't exactly new.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/government-
plan...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/14/government-planes-mimic-
cellphone-towers-to-collect-user-data-report)

~~~
jjwiseman
Yes! There are even articles from 3013 about the FBI using small planes for
aerial surveillance, including IMSI-catchers. I think the reason the story
might be catching on now is because of the compelling nature of seeing
screenshots of multiple circle tracks over multiple cities, and even seeing
photos of the planes and their camera turrets.

------
tzs
> Most flight patterns occurred in counter-clockwise orbits up to several
> miles wide and roughly one mile above the ground at slow speeds. A 2003
> newsletter from the company FLIR Systems Inc, which makes camera technology
> such as seen on the planes, described flying slowly in left-handed patterns.

The way they mentioned counter-clockwise orbits and then talk about FLIR's
newsletter mentioning left-handed patterns seems to be trying to use the
left/counter-clockwise aspects to connect the two.

That seems rather a stretch. Pilots have better visibility to the left in most
small planes, and so left turns are preferred. Also, propellers usually rotate
clockwise, which causes some biases toward the left I believe, which may make
it slightly easier to do left turns.

------
eruditely
I think the realities of statecraft in the twenty-first century has made stuff
like this to be impossible to do without, from what it seems like these
agencies are not evil and they have merely had to evolve to the realities of
this era.

I do not like it nor enjoy it but it seems like Russian/Chinese intelligence
have free reign in america whereas our agencies are under constant assault by
the public and all other nations versus us. Sometimes I fear we are bringing
down the state with out actions.

------
sgnelson
I might have missed it somewhere, but I'm curious as to what cities they were
flying over. Does anyone have a link/list of the cities that the FBI has been
flying over?

------
shmerl
Watchbird[1] coming next?

[1].
[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579)

See also
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-a...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121205/21484221251/nyc-
artists-satirizes-law-enforcement-drone-program-gets-book-thrown-him-
nypd.shtml)

------
ck2
If they actually had a warrant to look for some specific person or group of
people I'd actually have no problem with this. Gangs, drug dealers, etc.

The problem is as usual, they feel they are above any judicial review, even if
they know they would just get a rubber stamp from a "go to" judge.

------
dsugarman
This looks like the answer to a recent HN frontpage question

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504825](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9504825)

------
Lukeas14
\- the FBI’s planes “are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection
activities or mass surveillance”

At least not wittingly.

------
xacaxulu
For your safety.

------
patrickg_zill
It is amazing how prescient the movie "Enemy of the State" (with Will Smith,
Gene Hackman) was. And how it holds up to a second viewing even today.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
I recommend you watch Coppola's _The Conversation_ as well, which is what
originally inspired EotS. It's far more atmospheric and psychologically tense.

~~~
rsync
Agreed - The Conversation is quite good.

------
happyscrappy
Wait until HN learns about satellite surveillance.

~~~
josefresco
FBI Agent on Foot: OK

FBI Agent in a Van: OK

FBI Agent in a Plane: Not OK

I'm assuming an FBI agent in a satellite would be _really_ not OK.

~~~
discardorama
Strawman. The issue is not the presence of the pilot in the airplane; it's the
presence of high-res cameras, StingRays, etc.

------
rasz_pl
Are we sure its FBI and not some bigger 4 eyes operation? "Mystery Plane With
No Callsign Circles South London For Hours":

[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/mystery-plane-
no-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/22/mystery-plane-no-
callsign_n_5608777.html)

------
comrade1
As mentioned in a previous thread on this topic - they don't have to register
surveillance blimps, tethered or free-flying. Based on altitude I think.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
They do, they appeared on sectionals as obstacles
[https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/28/2010-272...](https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/10/28/2010-27251/revocation-
of-restricted-areas-r-3807-glencoe-la-and-r-6320-matagorda-tx)

