
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US - incompatible
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/pentagon-balloons-surveillance-midwest
======
apo
> The new balloons promise a cheap surveillance platform that could follow
> multiple cars and boats for extended periods. And because winds often travel
> in different directions at different altitudes, the balloons can usually
> hover over a given area simply by ascending or descending.

Stepping back from the details of this story reveals a striking pattern that
most public discussions on mass surveillance miss entirely.

Cost has protected citizens of the world's liberal democracies from sliding
into totalitarianism for a long time. Now the brakes are off. Surveillance
technology costs are plunging across at the board and capabilities are
skyrocketing.

Regardless of size or jurisdiction, there isn't a law enforcement agency out
there that doesn't want to (or actively seek to) increase its observational
capability.

Tumbling prices allow these organizations to indulge these urges.

Suddenly, basic assumptions about what governments can and can't do go out the
window. The equipment is bought and put into production. Better to ask
forgiveness than permission and all that.

There is no limit to the appetite for greater visibility into the private
lives of citizens. Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's
something else. The justifications change, but these are just thin veneers
over the ugly truth. Every government tends toward totalitarianism unless kept
in check by something pretty damn powerful.

This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be any
stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the Bill of
Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything there is to
know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent of these
capabilities are imprisoned or executed.

~~~
t-a4550
> “Today it's the war on drugs and terror. Tomorrow it's something else.”

> “This train has one destination, and it's not even clear if there will be
> any stops along the way. To understand where we're headed, try reading the
> Bill of Rights with the assumption that your government knows everything
> there is to know about you, and where those who attempt to reveal the extent
> of these capabilities are imprisoned or executed.”

Devil’s advocate here. Who’s to say they won’t use it strictly to deter drug
trafficking and terrorism? Couldn’t they take steps to be transparent about
what data is collected, and where it goes?

The point is, discussions on governmental surveillance usually jump to the
conclusion that society is becoming like George Orwell’s 1984.

Could someone explain why these surveillance balloons are bad news for
ordinary citizens _without_ using the slippery slope fallacy?

~~~
wskinner
The people in power today aren’t the people in power tomorrow. Even if you
trust those in power today, do you trust the next 10 administrations to have
sufficient restraint not to abuse their power?

~~~
metta2uall
If a future administration ever has the political power to implement
totalitarianism we're stuffed. The lack of a mass surveillance system will not
stop them as they will build one. Horrible totalitarian regimes have existed
in the past with quite low-tech systems (e.g. East Germany, USSR).

~~~
paganel
I lived in a totalitarian regime similar to the ones you mentioned
(Ceausescu’s Romania back in the ‘80s) and if his bad guys had had access to
today’s surveillance tools we would have been really, really stuffed.

As things were you “only” had to watch out for people who would rat you out to
Securitate or to Stasi (in East Germany), not an ideal situation but
manageable from a certain point on, one could live a decent life from a
“freedom” point of view, to say so, you could say political jokes or complain
about the regime to the right people, i.e. not the regime’s informers, or you
could directly “steal” from the State things you believe should have belonged
to you, like the peasants from my grandma’s village were doing when they were
taking stuff at night from the State farms that had been built on lands
nationalized by the State from the same farmers immediately after the
Communists came to power. All these things were highly illegal, I mean the
regime trash-talking, the taking of stuff from State farms, the only thing
protecting us was that the regime couldn’t follow us all in order to catch us.
With today’s tools that would not have been a problem, you can see that in
today’s China where every form of political jokes (even in private online
conversations) is prohibited and actively acted against.

~~~
Fnoord
Thank you for sharing your experience in a totalitarian regime.

I read The Aquariums Of Pyongyang [1] for a take on life and imprisonment in
North Korea. Recommended read.

What is your take on Huawei giving 3G/4G technology to North Korea by proxy?
Is North Korea technologically advanced enough to abuse technology to suppress
its citizens?

Also, to get an idea of the amount of data collected nowadays [2]

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

[2] [https://opendatacity.github.io/stasi-vs-
nsa/frame_en.html](https://opendatacity.github.io/stasi-vs-nsa/frame_en.html)

------
cherrypicker001
I saw a BBC short video while in Europe last summer. It was surreal. The video
was basically showing how awesome these aerial surveillance platforms were. At
one point the reporter walked out of the control center and started dancing
outside. It looked like he was having a lot of fun watching himself from a few
thousand feet up. If anyone manages to find it please post it. There was no
talk about the privacy implications. Just a puff piece to acclimatize people
into thinking this was normal.

If you don't yet know what these balloons are from articles on Afghanistan,
they provide very cheap ubiquitous physical surveillance on very large areas.
If one of these things have LOS on you or your home, you no longer have any
physical privacy.

If this doesn't piss you off you need to look up what a panopticon is.

~~~
lonelappde
Hey the good news for us is the ones in the US don't have self-guided missiles
attached, right?

~~~
20after4
Are you sure? If not yet, soon.

~~~
debatem1
*if not, loon.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_(company)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_\(company\))

------
mirimir
Somehow I didn't think that it was OK for the US military to operate
domestically. According to the Posse Comitatus Act.

But I see that there's an exception for surveillance.

Charming.

~~~
ptero
I think you are spot on and I am pretty sure Pentagon bureaucrats take PC very
seriously. That is why I suspect it is either a test for eventual use overseas
(not operational deployment), or DHS is ready to take over

------
andrerm
> “Obviously, there are laws to protect people’s privacy and we are respectful
> of all those laws,” Hartman said. “We also understand the importance of
> operating in an ethical way as it relates to further protecting people’s
> privacy.”

Sure /s

~~~
jlgaddis
It's very carefully worded.

They _understand_ the importance of operating ethically. They didn't say that
they _do_.

------
throwawaycanada
This is a documentary clip from 2013 that shows what the cameras and systems
in these blimps can do. Apparently the biggest breakthrough is their high
bandwidth laser data communication system.

The government should not have this much information asymmetry relative to the
citizenry.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA)

------
snazz
Are things flying at that altitude required to have a ADS-B transponder or
something like that to prevent collisions with other aircraft? I wonder if you
could track the balloons tracking you.

~~~
i_am_nomad
Yes. Google Loon balloons do show up on FlightRadar24, and if you’re close
enough you can detect them with a $8 RTS-SDR.

------
salawat
Well, this is extremely disturbing.

We're reaching a point where we're going to have to start realizing we cannot
systematically apply our own laws due to the ramifications of total awareness.

The availability of information will quickly outstrip the capacity of the
system to crank through it.

Just today I was discussing with colleagues that it's positively mortifying
the way people have trivialized their own children's privacy through things
like smartphones with tracking software, and hidden camera's everywhere.

I don't understand how much our societal fabric has decayed that anyone could
be even remotely comfortable with the magnitude of advancement in and
propagation of surveillance technology, and the relative lack of progress in
other verticals, or other facets of civil life.

To what end? Why do this? Why enable such avenues capable of completely
undermining society's capability to evolve? Once you have the capacity to
track minority faction movements perfectly, the stage is set for violent
suppression of politically disruptive movements.

It is one thing to not have the capability to do so; it is completely another
to have the capability to do so and to not use it. One can survive the overly
ambitious being in a position of power. The other can't.

I don't know as the path our society is going down will be even remotely
feasible to course correct. One can only hope.

------
wjn0
Is anyone else extremely bothered by the false equivalence of narcotics
trafficking and the need for homeland security?

This blurring of the lines between a multi-billion dollar _business_ (probably
around 1% of the world's GDP) that in fact relies on the success of the state,
and purported threats to the state itself strikes me as extremely dangerous.

I'm contrasting this to American intelligence involvement in central America
in the 1980s. During that time, the same organizations involved in cocaine
trafficking and production were also extremely political, and crucial to the
CIA carrying out their (in my opinion neoimperialist) "responsibilities" in
the region.

My point is: I am aware of absolutely no evidence that modern drug trafficking
organizations (DTOs) operating within the borders of the US are political
whatsoever, so can we really view them as a threat to homeland security? Is
there evidence that there is some risk of groups which pose a threat to our
security have infiltrated these DTOs, or are piggybacking off their operations
somehow?

~~~
wool_gather
There seems to be a certain amount of violence that comes with the territory
of illegal drug trafficking; that might not be national security per se, but
it's certainly something within the government's purview. It's also not that
much of a stretch to say that a public health crisis of drug addiction would
be a kind of threat to national security. Of course, if that were the real
thing, DHS should be going after the opioid peddlers, so...

~~~
wjn0
Well of course it's within the government's purview, but we have to draw a
line between law enforcement and military-run surveillance somewhere, and it
seems to me drug enforcement (violent or not) falls staunchly within the
former's purview. The blurring of that line or its movement altogether strikes
me as dangerous (cf. the mosaic theory of the 4th amendment [1]).

[1]
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032821](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032821)

------
m3kw9
To those that are profound, the US has mass surveillance since the first
satellite with camera was in orbit

~~~
brokenmachine
I found it really interesting when that link came up on HN recently of a spy
telescope taken by an amateur. Can't find the story now unfortunately.

I knew the Hubble was cool, but on that page it mentioned that this telescope
was one of _ten_ that the military had pointed at the Earth that are now
deprecated.

Imagine what they have now that is even better than ten Hubbles.

~~~
brokenmachine
Found the link: [https://www.universetoday.com/65458/spying-on-a-hubble-
teles...](https://www.universetoday.com/65458/spying-on-a-hubble-telescope-
look-alike/amp/?PageSpeed=noscript)

------
Tharkun
To quote Simone Weil out of context (she was talking about political parties):

> If one were to entrust the organisation of public life to the devil, he
> could not invent a more clever device.

------
mgamache
I am _not_ advocating this in the US or anywhere, but how would one disable a
surveillance balloon as an act of civil disobedience if necessary (without
ending up in jail)?

~~~
mirimir
Lasers are the only workable option, I think. But locating a small object at
some km altitude would be nontrivial. And hitting one with a laser would be
~impossible.

Also, it would see scattered light long before you hit it directly. And even
if it had an autonomous targeting system, there'd be a record of its
movements. So it would be very hard so stay anonymous.

~~~
anigbrowl
Atmospheric scattering seems like a big problem, but not location or
targeting.

People find satellites by doing long exposures (ideally in the infrared) and
then looking for movement that doesn't match the rotation of the earth -
indeed, I think it's quasi-automated by now. It's rather astonishing what you
can pick up with modern glass - there's videos on YouTube of the space station
shot from the ground, and while it just looks like a little squiggly letter H,
it's the freaking space station, in space, being imaged on relatively
affordable prosumer technology.

I know nothing about the power side of lasers and imagine you'd need a decent
size truck to hold one capable of setting something on fire at distance and
its power supply, but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of feasibility.

Of course, it would be 'easier' to hijack the balloon's guidance system but I
assume that about 5 minutes after you started broadcasting on restricted radio
frequencies people would be looking for you.

~~~
mirimir
OK. But small balloons at 15-20 km? That don't reflect much light? Seems iffy
to me. But maybe so.

I wasn't thinking of massive physical damage. Just nuking the FPAs.

Or perhaps small rockets. But guidance systems are hugely illegal to develop.
Chaff might work to mask movements temporarily. Or wildfires, I suppose. Not
that anyone sane would do that.

~~~
mgamache
"guidance systems are hugely illegal to develop" Curious what laws cover this?
I am sure they exist, just not explored this at all. Isn't GPS a 'guidance
system'?

~~~
pintxo
> The U.S. government controls the export of some civilian receivers. All GPS
> receivers capable of functioning above 18 km (59,000 ft) above sea level and
> 515 m/s (1,000 kn; 2,000 km/h; 1,000 mph), or designed or modified for use
> with unmanned missiles and aircraft, are classified as munitions
> (weapons)—which means they require State Department export licenses. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Rest...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Restrictions_on_civilian_use)

------
jhayward
The article notes that this uses the same balloon technology that Google's
project loon uses.

~~~
sambull
Ah so loon possibly was never about internet

~~~
daeken
Loon didn't supply the balloons, they just have a shared supplier.

~~~
zaroth
That’s not usually how these supplier partnerships work.

Loon needed a balloon which was probably not available off the shelf. They
paid a certain amount of money to get someone to build balloons to their
specification which probably involved a great deal of R&D, manufacturing
tooling, real world testing, etc.

Because Google didn’t develop the technology in-house, and perhaps as a
consequence of how the contract was written, we cannot say how much of the
technology developed for Loon could have ended up here, and if or whether Loon
should have paid more for exclusivity or restrictions on how that R&D could be
used, or if in fact Loon paid a lot less specifically because the supplier was
able to defray development costs through expected future military
applications.

Or maybe the tech really was off the shelf and destined for military use and
Loon just happened to use the same thing for their own Good Samaritan project.

However, several of Google’s balloons crashed to Earth so it’s a pretty good
bet that they were paying for prototypes and significant R&D was going into
the balloons.

------
MiroF
At what point do we just start a non violent movement of taping over cameras
wherever we see them?

~~~
Krasnol
It's hacker news.

How about hacking them?

~~~
somebodythere
Duct tape is a hack.

Low-tech hack, but a hack nonetheless.

------
i_am_proteus
There's a bit of scaremongering in the headline; these are being tested
domestically by the DOD use outside of the US. The DOD isn't allowed to
conduct domestic surveillance.

~~~
Spooky23
Sure.

They parked a visible radar blimp over I95 outside of Baltimore and operated
it for a couple of years. What’s the difference between “test” and “really
using it” when the tests last that long?

There are many loopholes for domestic stuff too. A National Guard member
controlling the thing for example.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Full season durability testing. Developing operational procedures to deal with
routine issues. These could easily take a few years.

~~~
grenoire
and then you can test again, and again, and again. Each time for a few more
years.

------
m0zg
So this is basically Google's Project Loon but with more spying? How do they
deal with cloud cover? It's not much of an issue for Loon, but I suppose it
would be problematic for anyone doing anything in the visual range.

------
tru3_power
This is disturbing

------
qserasera
Good thing Belgium already sold this NATO spec technology to China...

~~~
Tharkun
Got a link for that?

~~~
qserasera
[https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/belgian-firm-sells-
advanced-...](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/belgian-firm-sells-advanced-war-
room-software-to-china/)

[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2173593/chi...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2173593/china-
matches-nato-information-arms-race-deal-ferrari-war-room)

------
thereare5lights
Kinda weird that there isn’t more backlash to this

------
davisr
I don't comment much, but I feel compelled to mention how this currently has a
36:1 vote-to-comment ratio. The kinds of thing the US military is testing on
their own people is horrific, and it's our duty as American citizens to oppose
this kind of surveillance.

I sometimes feel I'm talking to a ghost. It is truly terrifying that my fellow
Americans are selling themselves out. Ring will let the government, Amazon,
and your neighbors spy on you. Grammarly will keylog and text-capture each
webpage. The FBI will fly planes overhead. Balloons will be launched, always
watching everyone.

There is no way to opt-out of this. I can't believe how stupid the "Hacker"
"News" community is--commenting on things that don't matter, then shutting up
for matters of grave importance.

You all deserve the tyranny that is coming.

~~~
davisr
The most important thing one can do is write, AND call, their legislature.
Don't ever shut up about it. Does it stand a chance against corporate
lobbyists? Probably not, but it leaves one with a clear conscience.

~~~
ultrarunner
I don’t think that sending a sternly written letter should have any bearing on
one’s conscious. I upvoted GP, but on the same note I know there is nothing we
can do at this point against a powerful bureaucracy with a lot of ideological
and financial incentive to proceed. That this has continued and accelerated
under multiple administrations with varied talking points should tell you
everything you need to know about the power of the modern vote at this level.

~~~
wallace_f
That's sad. So why even have kids, or go to work?

~~~
ultrarunner
Being sad does not make it untrue. Indeed, many political problems seem to
stem from an unwillingness to grapple with truths that make people
uncomfortable.

I’m not sure why you think an unaccountable political regime relates to
children and work— there are plenty of obvious and unrelated answers as to why
people do those things.

------
ashton314
Cheesy, but this reminds me of Captain America: Winter Soldier with the
massive gunships that target anyone considered to be a “threat”.

The government seems to make the case that this is “necessary” to stopping
crime. Is it? I’m sure it makes it really easy to catch criminals—but what’s
wrong with increasing the police force/improving non-technological
techniques/etc.?

~~~
maxheadroom
> _...but what’s wrong with increasing the police force /improving non-
> technological techniques/etc.?_

You mean _actual work_? We can't be having any of that! Plus, think of the
<insert some banally unimportant reason here>!

