
Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching from Above - prawn
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/spies-in-the-skies
======
brbsix
For anyone who wants to see the live data for themselves, go to
[http://www.adsbexchange.com/](http://www.adsbexchange.com/), click 'Global
Radar View'. Then click 'Menu', 'Options', 'Filters', then enable the
'Interesting' filter.

It's a Sunday, so there's not too much activity. However there's currently an
FBI Cessna circling west of Washington D.C. [0] There's also a plane gridding
east of LA. [1] It's registered to Dynamic Aviation Group out of Virginia, a
company that provides aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR), among other things. [2]

[0]: [http://i.imgur.com/8c0RQ9H.png](http://i.imgur.com/8c0RQ9H.png)

[1]: [http://i.imgur.com/Yki2UTs.png](http://i.imgur.com/Yki2UTs.png)

[2]: [http://www.dynamicaviation.com/flight-solutions-and-
services...](http://www.dynamicaviation.com/flight-solutions-and-
services/intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance/)

~~~
knz
This assumes that surveillance aircraft have their ADS-B transponder on. It's
not required until January 2020
([https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/faq/](https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/faq/)).

~~~
mentat
Running without ADS-B around major airports would be unacceptable. I think
drones are going to be required to have them before 2020 which makes me think
that isn't quite right.

~~~
neurotech1
With ATC notified, the helicopter could revert to Mode-C [0] transponder mode,
using an assigned transponder code and ATC would still track them safely. TCAS
[1] would also still function safely when interrogated by secondary radar.

ADS-B reduces controller workload as they don't have to manually tag
individual aircraft, especially in a high traffic area. ADS-B also works
without secondary radar interrogation.

When there is a high speed chase near an airport, sometimes the tower
controller will request the helicopter remain under a certain altitude or
clear of a specific area.

Additionally, websites like FlightAware.com have limited direct ADS-B coverage
and also display the FAA 5-minute delayed feed. I've never heard of a
"criminal" in the US using an ADS-B receiver to evade police helicopters in
real time.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_transponder_interroga...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_transponder_interrogation_modes#Mode_A_and_Mode_C)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system)

~~~
bigiain
I wonder if a $12 TV Tuner RTL-SDRs can listen in to secondary radar triggered
TCAS responses? (I wonder how much trouble you'd get in for setting up a USDR
or HackRFOne to transmit your own "secondary radar" signals to make the TCAS
respond?)

~~~
neurotech1
TCAS "responses" are only sent during a Resolution Advisory.

Mode-C and Mode-S responses are sent when interrogated by secondary radar.
ADS-B transponders with "Extended Squitter" transmit regularly while active,
so no need to transmit your own interrogation pulses.

Its possible to monitor Secondary Radar pulses, and Mode C returns. It would
require multiple geographically separated receivers to triangulate. I don't
think FlightAware supports Mode C, only Mode S(MLAT) and ADS-B.

If you transmitted your own "secondary radar" pulses, the FAA and/or the FCC
would probably launch a criminal investigation, with the FBI involved. Making
your own "secondary radar" would be pointless and high risk.

------
drhodes
reminds me of a radiolab episode: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-
sky/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/eye-sky/)

here's the summary,

> In 2004, when casualties in Iraq were rising due to roadside bombs, Ross
> McNutt and his team came up with an idea. With a small plane and a 44 mega-
> pixel camera, they figured out how to watch an entire city all at once, all
> day long. Whenever a bomb detonated, they could zoom onto that spot and
> then, because this eye in the sky had been there all along, they could
> scroll back in time and see - literally see - who planted it. After the war,
> Ross McNutt retired from the airforce, and brought this technology back home
> with him. Manoush Zomorodi and Alex Goldmark from the podcast “Note to Self”
> give us the low-down on Ross’s unique brand of persistent surveillance, from
> Juarez, Mexico to Dayton, Ohio. Then, once we realize what we can do, we
> wonder whether we should.

~~~
nxzero
Point of Origin (POO) analysis believe is the tech term.

~~~
drawnwren
WAMI is another. Wide Area Motion Imagery.

~~~
nxzero
POO would likely be a subset of WAMI analysis.

------
danielrhodes
Here's my guess based on the following info:

\- The article points out that the planes are typically only seen M-F, which
suggests that what they are doing is usually not time-sensitive.

\- They mention the planes have a very high quality camera on board.

\- From the flight patterns, you can see they repeatedly circle the same
location, but not apparently for hours and hours at time.

When Apple first released their Maps product, it was revealed that they also
flew planes at low altitude to capture super high quality pictures of cities
at different angles. They would then process the data later and create 3D
models. [1]

Satellites are too expensive to use for this sort of thing, are affected by
cloud cover and non-optimal angles, and won't be higher quality than what you
can capture from a plane.

So my guess is they are doing exactly what Apple was doing: capturing high
quality images of various points of interest and then creating 3D models in
case they need to use them later.

Another thing they are probably looking for (from the mention of the FLIR
camera) is people growing drugs in their basement or perhaps where people
congregate in a building.

They probably find this useful for among other things, having very up to date
photography of a particular area, and also in case they need it for some
operation like a raid.

[1] [http://www.applegazette.com/apple-inc/how-apple-
creates-3d-f...](http://www.applegazette.com/apple-inc/how-apple-
creates-3d-flyover-maps/)

~~~
carbocation
Using FLIR for drug growing detection requires a warrant.

~~~
jessaustin
So they're using it for some other purpose. It's just a coincidence that all
growers on the flight path have been busted via "anonymous tips".

~~~
pavel_lishin
I assume that the 'coincidence' you mention is just hypothetical, but that
_would_ be a pretty interesting topic to research.

------
repiret
I own a Cessna 182 that was originally owned by the Washington State Police.
While they owned it they added an automotive-style muffler (planes don't
normally have mufflers) to use it for stealth surveillance. They tore that all
out before they sold the plane.

There's a pretty complete description of what they did in the Form 337
history:
[http://mike.laiosa.org/N6594E/Airworthiness.pdf](http://mike.laiosa.org/N6594E/Airworthiness.pdf)
\- see in particular pages 27 and 55.

~~~
cmurf
Neat plane, 182. I must have ~1500 hours in that model. Simple, normally
aspirated, non retractable gear, constant speed prop, really good IFR training
plane. Good trip plane, loading and fuel wise. Never a concern getting it into
and out of small tenor gravel strip airports.

Police surveillance, makes sense, relatively inexpensive to operate, but good
loading for whatever gear they're carrying.

~~~
repiret
Yeah it's a great plane, hard to beat for any operation where you don't need
more speed more altitude. I'll bet law enforcement can operate them for about
2X a regular squad car.

Unfortunately most of my family gets horribly air sick, so mine is for sale -
I'm looking for something cheaper to operate and cheaper to buy.

------
insickness
I have to say, I'm really not against this. I used to read about privacy
people getting pissed at all the CCTV surveillance in London, etc. And it
concerned me.

But then I got into photography. And in that case, police were trying to
trample on the rights of photographers. But the main idea is that
photographers are allowed to photograph pretty much anywhere in public. And I
agree with this. You can't make laws forbidding photographing a particular
building, for example.

That got me thinking, if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in
public, why should we forbid our government? In fact, when crimes happen, most
of the time these days, video surveillance is a huge help.

If that data were made publicly accessible, would it be a problem that it was
being recorded? What are the drawbacks of public surveillance?

~~~
ryanmonroe
>if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in public, why should we
forbid our government?

I don't understand this comparison. The very fact that the surveillance is
being done by the government changes the meaning of the action. Citizens don't
have the power to do anything with the information they might gather through
surveillance. Citizens don't have the ability to force all other citizens to
pay them more money for funding surveillance programs of ever-increasing
scope. Citizens have jobs which exist to serve a real need that exists in the
economy, and so realistically wouldn't be doing anything of the same magnitude
unless there was popular demand for it.

~~~
cpncrunch
You're poisoning the well here. There's no evidence that the government is
gathering surveillance for any nefarious purpose, or that they're doing it
just for the fun of spending your (the taxpayer's) money.

In fact, your argument is somewhat ironic, as it is the same logic used by the
police to prevent photographers from photographing in public, as descibed by
the OP.

------
jjwiseman
They made their code and data, along with notes on the analysis, available:
[http://buzzfeednews.github.io/2016-04-federal-
surveillance-p...](http://buzzfeednews.github.io/2016-04-federal-surveillance-
planes/analysis.html)

------
donatj
Map shows right over my house, the conspiracy theorist in me says 'they're
watching me!'

~~~
daveguy
If a circle is dead center around your house then you are probably not the
focus. Check out the gifs lower down after the San Bernardino attacks. The
locations they were investigating -- mosque, workplace, home of Farook -- are
all offset from the center for the best combination of angle / proximity.

Edit: Also, check out Los Angeles (if that's not where you are from). They are
swarming LA! I'd be weirded out if I was in LA and NOT near activity.

~~~
woodman
I lived in an old house, in a rural area, where the previous owner had painted
some concrete bright green. I was surprised by the amount of air traffic I
saw, being as deep into the sticks as I was, until I actually started watching
the aircraft. They were using my property as a landmark to turn on for final
approach to a municipal airport several miles away. But I can see how that
pattern could cause someone to jump to the conclusion that they are the
subject of an incredibly expensive revolving tail.

------
mmaunder
That C208 they're using via a front company has cargo space in the luggage
area for radio and camera equipment and it's much less obvious than putting a
radome below the fuselage.

Here's a fun clip of the Iraqis using a 208 to launch a hellfire.
[https://youtu.be/eSKsrILHxNM?t=57s](https://youtu.be/eSKsrILHxNM?t=57s)

------
hackuser
Why use front companies and hide their activities? They are domestic law
enforcement and not intelligence; shouldn't what they do be mostly out in the
open?

~~~
jonnybgood
1\. These are most likely not front companies but ISR contractors.

2\. FBI is both a law enforcement and intelligence organization.

~~~
chiph
3\. Money to rent a plane comes out of a different part of the budget than a
capital expenditure to buy and outfit their own plane. And so it's easier to
justify to the boss.

------
CydeWeys
Is any intel of appreciable worth actually being gathered, or is this just a
colossal waste of money and a massive invasion of privacy? What are these
planes really achieving that you don't get from, say, a police helicopter that
is tailing a suspect?

------
DGAP
The main angle this article seems to take is that this surveillance is unfair
because it may target Muslims. I see no problem with surveilling the mosque of
two people who just committed a terrorist attack, in fact it would be risky
not to do so.

~~~
cpncrunch
The article also points out that FBI flights circled other muslim communities
as well. However all of these attacks are perpetrated in the name of Islam
(albeit bastardised Islam), so it seems reasonable for them to do this, even
if politically incorrect. Also, we don't know if there were any suspects in
those communities linked to the attackers.

------
ipsin
FBI secrecy makes it hard to challenge these tactics, because it's not clear
what "these tactics" are, and whose information is actually being gathered.

The last aerial surveillance case I can recall is California v. Ciraolo, which
was about surveillance with the naked eye. I hope that these flights wouldn't
survive a legal challenge, but I _also_ believe that the FBI would be likely
to launder anything gathered via parallel construction -- engineering a
"normal" traffic stop, etc., based on gathered information.

As with the use of Stingrays, secrecy is used to thwart justice. I don't know
how to stop it.

~~~
cpncrunch
Is surveillance with the naked eye from the air illegal?

What objection do you have with the FBI tracking criminal suspects from the
air?

Do you also object to the FBI staking out suspects from their cars?

(I'm not referring to Stingrays here, just surveillance from the air with
cameras/eyeballs).

~~~
ipsin
The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye
was lawful, and did not require a warrant.

"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things,
right?

Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with
the naked eye.

Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the
FBI staking out suspects from their cars".

~~~
cpncrunch
>The point of California v. Ciraolo was that surveillence with the naked eye
was lawful, and did not require a warrant.

I realise that, but you said "I hope that these flights wouldn't survive a
legal challenge" so I inferred that you thought the judgement was incorrect.

>"cameras/eyeballs"... you understand that those are two different things,
right?

I'm not sure if you're trolling here. The slash meant "or" in this case, which
should be been patently obvious.

>Large area digital data collection is not the same as observing an area with
the naked eye.

Of course, and it's not illegal AFAIK.

>Deployed networks of automated license plate readers are not the same as "the
FBI staking out suspects from their cars".

The article doesn't mention "automated license plate readers".

------
jerryhuang100
the map clearly shows super high density of DHS operations around the midtown
Manhattan at the end of Sep 2015, when UN GA took place and the Pope gave a
speech.

~~~
johansch
I guess beause of the UN GA they had to do both massive security ops and
massive targeted surveillance at the same time :).

------
Johnie
These were some of the drones and surveillance flights over South Bay during
the Super Bowl:
[https://twitter.com/Johnie/status/696475657375625216](https://twitter.com/Johnie/status/696475657375625216)

------
microcolonel
“I don’t know that they have ever done surveillance of churches or synagogues
when people of those traditions have committed acts of criminality.”

Sounds like a crock if I ever heard one.

------
nxzero
Curious, anyone know why the FBI takes the weekends off?

~~~
a3n
Because like most entities their employees are on a five day schedule, and
most of those employees want M-F so they can family on weekends. Guess.

------
njharman
I thought these weren't "watching" as much as they were using stingrays to
slurp up cellular location and metadata.

~~~
cpncrunch
They say that that happens, but it is rare:

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-
surveilla...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/02/fbi-surveillance-
government-planes-cities)

------
Yhippa
The huge circle in Northern Virginia West of DC: is that George Mason
University?

~~~
djKianoosh
no.. that's a bit north/northwest of GMU

------
awqrre
Any idea what is the altitude of these planes?

~~~
handedness
Typically 1500-6000 feet AGL, the kind of altitude one would want for that
kind of collection of signals.

------
mcphage
What were they doing over Canandaigua?!

~~~
johansch
Drugs or terrorism seems like the most likely candidates.

------
dylz
I have to admit, [https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2016-04-federal-
surveillance-...](https://buzzfeednews.github.io/2016-04-federal-surveillance-
planes/analysis.html) is not something I would expect from Buzzfeed.

Huge surprise.

~~~
brown9-2
We are at the point now where if you are surprised by the serious journalism
going on at Buzzfeed, it just means you have not been paying attention.

~~~
Symbiote
It's very easy not to pay attention, when Facebook provide the "don't show me
anything from XYZ" button.

------
johansch
Good on the FBI/DHS, I say.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

~~~
mtgx
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to dislike it. Also, they tend to keep
these actions secret, which doesn't bode well for government transparency and
government trust.

~~~
daveguy
Agreed. Circling surveillance planes are unsettling no matter if it is routine
or not. I believe they should have warrants for these and maybe they do, maybe
they don't. There is not enough transparency to know (even just a report of
the number of investigations and outstanding warrants in cities or districts
would be enough).

~~~
refurb
Why would they need warrants for watching a person in a public place? You
don't have an expectation of privacy in that situation.

~~~
rmxt
There needs to be further refinement as to what actually constitutes
"watching", e.g. with respect to duration, frequency, information monitored,
etc. _US v. Jones_ held that installing a GPS device on a car constituted a
trespass against one's "personal effects".

I think the similar argument here would be that a near constant observation of
someone, even while in public, would amount to the same sort of search, even
though one has a very low expectation of privacy while in public.

~~~
rayiner
Jones was based on the classic idea that when the government does what would
be a trespass if a private person did it, then a warrant is required.
Observing someone in public is not a trespass, no matter how much you do it.

~~~
rmxt
You are correct to say that you can't commit a trespass by observing someone
in public. However, trespassing is not an exclusive test as to whether a
search is permissible (though it was the applicable rubric for Jones). The
Katz test still must be applied, above and beyond the trespassory test. The
concurrences in the Jones opinion state "at the very least, “longer term GPS
monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of
privacy.”

Swap "GPS monitoring" for infrared, EMF, video, audio tracking, whatever those
planes are doing, and I think we are at the same level of "impinge(ment) on
expectations of privacy."

Is it your opinion that Alito and Sotomayor are barking up the wrong tree? Is
this sort of extensive (i.e. multi-modal (visual, EMF, etc.)), and evidently
prolonged, monitoring _not_ an impingement on typical expectation of privacy?
Sure, this isn't a trespass, but if a private person was doing this to you,
wouldn't you want to call the cops? (Oh, wait...)

~~~
rayiner
My point is that _Jones_ doesn't really help you: the majority opinion focused
on the trespass theory, and did not rely on the consequences of longer-term
GPS monitoring.

In my opinion, the whole "expectation of privacy" thing is reading words into
the 4th amendment that aren't there. If you look at the phrasing of the text,
which focuses on "searches" and "seizures" of "persons, houses, papers, and
effects" it's clear that the 4th amendment prohibits the government from doing
what would be a common law trespass (to the person, to real property, or to
chattels). It's based on property rights, not privacy.

------
capote
I really wish this weren't on Buzzfeed.

~~~
prawn
Why? They're putting out more and more quality material, and it could be
argued that they're getting interesting topics in front of a broader audience.

~~~
hoorayimhelping
The comments are saying that this is largely derivative of someone else's
work.

~~~
jjwiseman
It's not. I've been involved in this story since before anyone published
anything. These Buzzfeed journalists have done some excellent, original work.

