AP source: DHS to kill domestic satellite spying

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Orange County Register

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano plans to kill a program begun by the Bush administration that would use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law enforcement, a government official said Monday.

Napolitano recently reached her decision after the program was discussed with law enforcement officials, and she was told it was not an urgent issue, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it.

The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.

The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns.

The program was included in the Obama administration's 2010 budget request, according to Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member who was briefed on the department's classified intelligence budget.

Harman said Monday she had not been given final word that the program would be killed. She said she would talk to Napolitano on Tuesday.

Harman has been outspoken about her concerns that the program is unnecessary, far reaching and open-ended.

"I thought this was just an invitation to huge mischief," Harman said. Of killing the program, she said, "It shows real leadership on the part of Janet Napolitano."

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said Napolitano began looking at the program shortly after she became secretary. Kudwa said the department expects to announce the results of that review soon.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he hoped the department wasn't canceling the program.

"If it is true, it's a very big mistake," said King, who is the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. "This is definitely a step back in the war on terror."

For years, domestic agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Interior Department have had access to this satellite imagery for scientific research, to assist in response to natural disasters like hurricanes and fires, and to map out vulnerabilities during a major public event like the Super Bowl.

Since 1974 the agency's requests satellite imagery have been made through the federal interagency group, the Civil Applications Committee.

The Bush administration, however, decided to funnel the requests through the Homeland Security Department and expand their use for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.

After receiving a letter from Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, Napolitano decided the program should be canceled.

Bratton, in his role as head of the Major City Chiefs Association, wrote on June 21 that the program, as envisioned by the Bush administration, is not an urgent need for local law enforcement.

Instead, Bratton said, Homeland Security should focus on the fusion centers across the country and improving information-sharing with state and local officials to improve the domestic intelligence picture.

Bratton said he was unaware whether police chiefs has been consulted by Bush administration officials about the satellite program.

"To my knowledge, this is the first opportunity major law enforcement organizations have had to participate in this significant and complex initiative," he said in the letter
 
The program was announced in 2007 and was to have the Homeland Security Department use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites for homeland security and law enforcement purposes.

The program, called the National Applications Office, has been delayed because of privacy and civil liberty concerns.

<center><font size="6">. . . </font size></center>

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he hoped the department wasn't canceling the program.

"If it is true, it's a very big mistake," said King, who is the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee. "This is definitely a step back in the war on terror."

A step back -- and the program has never been used ? ? ?

QueEx
 
waste of money, resources and brain power.

Bratton is right the Fusion Centers should be a priority. At a minimum all the players at the strategic level should be in one place. An operations level presence would be helpful but they are used to functioning in less than desirable conditions.

The key to stopping a domestic attack is having people in the different areas of expertise in a single place with access to seemily innoculous information that only they will know is odd or out of place.

law enforcement is coming to realize, finally, that not sharing what seems to be innoculus unrelated incidents and info between Federal and State authorities could mean the difference between averting an attack or a successful one.

Not that I know anything about this. Just my 2 cents:rolleyes:I'm just saying.
 
waste of money, resources and brain power.

Bratton is right the Fusion Centers should be a priority. At a minimum all the players at the strategic level should be in one place. An operations level presence would be helpful but they are used to functioning in less than desirable conditions.

The key to stopping a domestic attack is having people in the different areas of expertise in a single place with access to seemily innoculous information that only they will know is odd or out of place.

law enforcement is coming to realize, finally, that not sharing what seems to be innoculus unrelated incidents and info between Federal and State authorities could mean the difference between averting an attack or a successful one.

Not that I know anything about this. Just my 2 cents:rolleyes:I'm just saying.

I couldn't agree more. The question in my mind is whether the people are really ready for the kind of sharing that would really make a difference. The model for this sharing is quite old (I'd like to talk about it, but I'd have to kill mahself); but it would require interweaving an integrated reporting & analysis system among and between the civilian sphere (police, municipal and county governments) - and - the federalies (FBI, CIA, DIA, etc). People are likely to scream over the possibility of closely wedding these because of the fear it would impinge on privacy concerns -- but, meaningful sharing, I believe, would require it.

But, can the government ever be trusted in the civilian arena ???

QueEx
 
I couldn't agree more. The question in my mind is whether the people are really ready for the kind of sharing that would really make a difference. The model for this sharing is quite old (I'd like to talk about it, but I'd have to kill mahself); but it would require interweaving an integrated reporting & analysis system among and between the civilian sphere (police, municipal and county governments) - and - the federalies (FBI, CIA, DIA, etc). People are likely to scream over the possibility of closely wedding these because of the fear it would impinge on privacy concerns -- but, meaningful sharing, I believe, would require it.

But, can the government ever be trusted in the civilian arena ???

QueEx


Several States already have Fusion Centers up and running. Some others are balking because they will actually have to spend State dollars on them. I don't have any concrete data on how they are working overall. What I do know is the normal turf battles are occuring, but that's normal. It's going to take awhile to get it right.

Dealing with the different personal and agency agendas is always a challenge. Only way around it is to have competent leadership to facilitate co operation and enforce compliance.

The privacy issue is a potential pandora's box. Written procedures and strict enforcement is the way to go IMO. The particulars of the incident/info,geospatial data along with basic census info is probably what most analyst should need to arrive at concerns or patterns. Leave the personal identifying info to Law enforcement.

Thats what I would suggest if I was invovlved in that kind of work.


BigUnc
 
Back
Top