EXPLAINER: Rittenhouse Plane Part of Widespread Surveillance | Wisconsin News | US News

[Karl]

this is way more relevant than a funny murder trial

it' nice to get mainstream coverage of this.  at big protests by long term
communities you get helicopters leading up (and armies of cops in riot gear
pulled from nonlocal areas etc etc)

On Sat, Nov 6, 2021, 2:31 AM jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-11-03/explainer-rittenhouse-plane-part-of-widespread-surveillance
>
>
EXPLAINER: Rittenhouse Plane Part of Widespread Surveillance
The FBI surveillance plane that captured footage of the night Kyle
Rittenhouse shot three people during a protest against police brutality in
Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year was part of a wider government strategy to
keep tabs on demonstrations against racial injustice.

By Associated Press
Nov. 3, 2021

This Aug. 25, 2021, image taken from FBI video is shown during Kyle
   Rittenhouse's trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis., on
   Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021. Prosecutors working to convict Rittenhouse in
the
   shootings of three people during a protest against police brutality in
   Wisconsin have introduced as evidence surveillance video taken from an
FBI
   airplane circling thousands of feet above the chaos. (FBI via AP) The
   Associated Press

   By TODD RICHMOND, Associated Press

   MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Prosecutors working to convict Kyle Rittenhouse in
the
   shootings of three people during a protest against police brutality in
   Wisconsin have introduced as evidence surveillance video taken from an
FBI
   airplane circling thousands of feet above the chaos.

   Rittenhouse killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wounded Gaige
   Grosskreutz during the demonstration in Kenosha in August 2020. His trial
   began Monday. Rittenhouse argues that he fired in self-defense after the
   men attacked him; prosecutors say he inserted himself into a volatile
   situation and that video from the plane will show he chased Rosenbaum.

   Here's a look at government efforts to track people's activities from the
   air:

   HAS THE GOVERNMENT USED PLANES TO MONITOR PAST PROTESTS?

Yes. Aerial surveillance of protests is actually very common. According to
   an August 2020 Air Force inspector general report, the National Guard
used
   surveillance planes to watch over demonstrations in Washington, D.C.,
   Minnesota, Arizona and California after George Floyd's death in
Minneapolis
   that May.

   The FBI used aircraft to monitor protests in Ferguson, Missouri,
following
   the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown and in Baltimore to track
   protests following Freddie Gray's death in police custody in 2015.
Democrat
   Barack Obama was president during both of those events. Law enforcement
   also used aerial surveillance to monitor a white nationalist rally in
   Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 that turned deadly. Republican Donald
   Trump was president at that time.

   An Associated Press investigation in 2015 found that the FBI had built a
   fleet of at least 50 surveillance planes that flew more than 100 flights
   over 11 states during a one-month span in the spring of that year under
the
   Obama administration. The AP traced the planes to at least 13 fake
   companies designed to obscure the identity of the aircraft and the
pilots.

   The AP review also found that the Drug Enforcement Administration had at
   least 92 surveillance aircraft as of 2011 under Obama. The U.S. Marshals
   Service also has operated its own aerial surveillance program.

   Ashley Gorski, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who specializes
   in surveillance issues, said government agencies clearly flew more aerial
   surveillance missions during Black Lives Matter protests last year, when
   Trump was president.

   “The result here was particularly aggressive,” she said. “It does seem
the
   response was unusual and unprecedented.”

   WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGY DO THE PLANES USE?

Pilots can shoot video of the scenes below them using standard cameras,
   infrared sensors that pick up body heat and light sensors with enough
   resolution to show building features, basic vehicle features and
movements
   such as people walking or riding bicycles. The planes also can carry
   technology that mimics cellphone towers, enabling agencies to track
   people's cellphones even if they're not making a call or in public. Much
of
   the technology was developed for use by the U.S. military in Iraq as part
   of a project dubbed Gorgon Stare after the mythical Greek monster that
   could turn men to stone with a glance.

   Even if the video images are blurry, agencies can still use them in
   combination with other data to discover people's identities.

   IS THIS LEGAL?

   Generally, yes. Aerial surveillance of people in public places is legal
and
   is no different than a video camera mounted on a light pole, said William
   McGeveren, a University of Minnesota law professor who specializes in
data
   privacy and free speech. Government agencies do not need a warrant to
   conduct such surveillance, he said.

   However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that extended surveillance
of
   an individual over a large area is illegal. And the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court
   of Appeals ruled in June that the Baltimore Police Department's six-month
   trial aerial surveillance program was unconstitutional because the
planes'
   wide-angle cameras put virtually all city residents under surveillance
for
   12 hours a day. The ruling came after Black activists sued the city.

   Government agencies can impose limitations on their own programs as well.
   The Air Force report found that the National Guard never got the required
   authorization from the secretary of defense or the secretary of the Army
to
   launch aerial surveillance of the Floyd protests. A spokesman for the
FBI's
   Milwaukee field office, which is responsible for Kenosha, didn't
   immediately respond to a message seeking comment. The FBI’s national
press
   office also didn't reply to an email.

   IF AERIAL SURVEILLANCE IS LEGAL, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Such surveillance can help police respond in real time to demonstrations
   that turn violent and identify and arrest bad actors after the fact,
   protecting public safety.

   But civil rights advocates fear that such surveillance leads to
government
   agencies tracking people's every move, making people afraid to leave
their
   homes or be seen associating with others at political functions and
   amounting to violations of constitutional freedom of speech and
association
   guarantees. The mere presence of government aircraft can intimidate those
   on the ground; two military helicopters buzzed protesters at a Floyd
   protest in Washington last summer, blasting protesters with high-speed
wind
   from their rotors.

   And the programs' very existence can erode trust in the government,
   especially among Black leaders. One of the Black plaintiffs in the
   Baltimore case, for example, argued that she routinely visits murder
scenes
   and was afraid that the surveillance program would result in police
   gathering specific information about her.

   WHAT SORT OF IMPACT COULD THE AERIAL VIDEO HAVE ON RITTENHOUSE?

   It's too early to tell. Prosecutors contend that the video will show
   Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum before the situation reversed itself and
   Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse — possibly chipping away at Rittenhouse's
   self-defense claims. Portions of the infrared video prosecutors played in
   court on Tuesday — shot from nearly 9,000 feet — showed dozens of small,
   fuzzy and indistinct images of people standing or moving along the
streets
   and sidewalks.

   But on Wednesday, with superimposed images identifying the two men, a
   Kenosha police detective testified under questioning from defense
attorney
   Mark Richards that it appeared at one point that Rosenbaum had been
   “hiding” as Rittenhouse arrived at that location. Richards called the
   confrontation “the classic ambush” — words that were struck after the
   prosecution objected, but were heard by the jury.

>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 12582 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20211106/dc8cde5c/attachment.txt>