Coming Around
I admit that I am pleased to see some of the larger elements of the print media finally coming out and noting (if not outright condemning) this administration's gutting of constitutional safeguards. It would have been nice if some of the current observations had been made right from the start so that the loss of some of our liberties could have been prevented, but at least there is finally some recognition of the damage that has been done in the name of "security."
There's an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times which inveighs against the use of military satellites on domestic targets. While I don't think the Posse Comitatus argument upon which the editorial is mostly based is the strongest (constitutional guarantees would have sufficed), the editorial does make clear the danger which continues unabated in the country.
... the "war on terror," which reaches inside American borders as well as outside, inevitably has caused some to ask whether the military should fight it at home too. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security, without so much as a phone call to Congress, has developed a program to draw on military surveillance satellites to help local police. Under the program as envisioned, police or sheriff's departments could request targets -- a suspected drug dealer's house, say. A National Applications Office in the Homeland Security Department would consider the requests and, on approval, attempt to deliver the information to local law enforcement, which it refers to as its "customers."
That's tempting. What's the harm in printing out high-resolution satellite images -- which the government already is producing -- and sharing them with officials who might use them to thwart criminals? In most cases, they would simply be photographs capturing activity outdoors, where there is little reasonable expectation of privacy. There could, however, be exceptions -- critics warn of infrared sensors, advanced radar, acoustic scans and devices to pinpoint various structural materials.
Such applications help to highlight at least three immediate reasons to greet this idea with skepticism. First, it turns the military away from its essential mission --fighting America's enemies abroad -- and toward an area where it doesn't have much expertise, namely spying on those it's charged to defend. Second, redirecting spy cameras and sensors onto American rooftops offers up perilous possibilities in mission and technology creep. And third, this administration long ago lost the public's trust on domestic surveillance.
Philosophically, refocusing satellites on the home front represents a new dimension in warrantless surveillance. Cameras said to be able to make out objects that can fit in one's hand would be trained on backyards; at some angles, through windows; and with some technologies, through walls and roofs, probing for heat or other indicators of life or malfeasance. The government's surveillance capabilities would be radically expanded. All of that should alarm anyone who values privacy in the home or who questions the virtue of a snooping government. [Emphasis added]
The military has already been given the power to spy within the US borders, so this further intrusion is certainly no major surprise. Still, it is telling that the Department of Homeland Security, acting as intermediary, is so willing to assist local law enforcement agencies by giving them access to the military hardware. Apparently pot growers have now been declared terrorists from whom we all must be protected. The editorialist clearly gets it, as the use of this quote makes clear:
"Where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
The quote comes from a 2001 Supreme Court decision. It's author? Justice Antonin Scalia.
Nicely done, Los Angeles Times.
There's an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times which inveighs against the use of military satellites on domestic targets. While I don't think the Posse Comitatus argument upon which the editorial is mostly based is the strongest (constitutional guarantees would have sufficed), the editorial does make clear the danger which continues unabated in the country.
... the "war on terror," which reaches inside American borders as well as outside, inevitably has caused some to ask whether the military should fight it at home too. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security, without so much as a phone call to Congress, has developed a program to draw on military surveillance satellites to help local police. Under the program as envisioned, police or sheriff's departments could request targets -- a suspected drug dealer's house, say. A National Applications Office in the Homeland Security Department would consider the requests and, on approval, attempt to deliver the information to local law enforcement, which it refers to as its "customers."
That's tempting. What's the harm in printing out high-resolution satellite images -- which the government already is producing -- and sharing them with officials who might use them to thwart criminals? In most cases, they would simply be photographs capturing activity outdoors, where there is little reasonable expectation of privacy. There could, however, be exceptions -- critics warn of infrared sensors, advanced radar, acoustic scans and devices to pinpoint various structural materials.
Such applications help to highlight at least three immediate reasons to greet this idea with skepticism. First, it turns the military away from its essential mission --fighting America's enemies abroad -- and toward an area where it doesn't have much expertise, namely spying on those it's charged to defend. Second, redirecting spy cameras and sensors onto American rooftops offers up perilous possibilities in mission and technology creep. And third, this administration long ago lost the public's trust on domestic surveillance.
Philosophically, refocusing satellites on the home front represents a new dimension in warrantless surveillance. Cameras said to be able to make out objects that can fit in one's hand would be trained on backyards; at some angles, through windows; and with some technologies, through walls and roofs, probing for heat or other indicators of life or malfeasance. The government's surveillance capabilities would be radically expanded. All of that should alarm anyone who values privacy in the home or who questions the virtue of a snooping government. [Emphasis added]
The military has already been given the power to spy within the US borders, so this further intrusion is certainly no major surprise. Still, it is telling that the Department of Homeland Security, acting as intermediary, is so willing to assist local law enforcement agencies by giving them access to the military hardware. Apparently pot growers have now been declared terrorists from whom we all must be protected. The editorialist clearly gets it, as the use of this quote makes clear:
"Where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
The quote comes from a 2001 Supreme Court decision. It's author? Justice Antonin Scalia.
Nicely done, Los Angeles Times.
Labels: Domestic Spying, Fourth Amendment, Free Press
posted by Diane at 4:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home