Judge blocks Seattle from revealing locations of FBI’s hidden cameras on utility poles
Source: Seattle Times
A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing Seattle City Light from disclosing the location of FBI cameras and other surveillance equipment hidden on some of the city’s utility poles.
U.S. District Judge Richard Jones said in a written order Monday that he reviewed classified material before issuing the order, finding that the bureau could be “irreparably injured” if the information is released. Turning over the information could damage national security or “harm important federal law enforcement operational interests as well as the personal privacy of innocent third parties.”
Federal prosecutors filed a complaint Monday in U.S. District Court asking that City Light be barred from turning over the information in response to a state public- disclosure request filed by Phil Mocek, a founding member of the Center for Open Policing, which has sued a number of public agencies over access to information.
According to the complaint, filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI claims it has “already been injured by the city’s unauthorized” disclosure of the existence of the cameras to KIRO-TV in November in response to a public-disclosure request.
Read more: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/judge-blocks-seattle-city-light-from-disclosing-locations-of-fbi-surveillance-cameras/
Crazy times.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
villager
(26,001 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)
phazed0
(745 posts)about how Donald is crazy for wanting to spy on Muslims.. yet he's doing it to everyone. I guess there is something to say about not discriminating.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/obama-pushes-back-against-criticism-over-terrorism-rhetoric/index.html (Video, 3:55 into it)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when out in public, one has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding where one is and/or what one is doing.
BTW, do you know how the majority of missing children/persons are found?
villager
(26,001 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)as my career took me in a different, and more enjoyable, direction.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Congratulations on the positive career change. Few are willing to make that leap. Especially considering the investments made towards education in one's chosen field.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My lawyerly work provided me a skill set and level of expertise that allowed for a smooth transition AND ... I found myself, hating lawyers AND the application (misapplication) of the law.
And having worked mostly for non-profits and the government ... my switch, also, meant little in lost wages.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Or did you, since you're not lawyering anymore?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)though I did follow lines of cases out of interest.
villager
(26,001 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)I think the whole idea is that these tools can easily be turned against us by the like of a Donald Trump or similar.
As far as missing children, persons are found, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, it would suggest that FBI surveillance camera's have diddly squat to do with anything, just good 'ol detective work and following leads, talking with people.
http://www.missingkids.com/Missing/Success
http://www.missingkids.com/amber/success
No, no, most people are recovered by contacting the communities and employing the power of the people...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And regarding your missing child/persons comment, you clearly know nothing about missing persons investigations ... if cameras are available, they are the first stop for the investigators.
phazed0
(745 posts)that "the majority of missing children/persons are found" by using FBI surveillance cameras in Seattle, or similar. Post up, should be easy if true.
villager
(26,001 posts)One might think.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)working with cops.
villager
(26,001 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it's neither life experience nor case law, nor anything beyond, "I think ..."
villager
(26,001 posts)...since you have no idea who I am, what my background is, etc.
And since you have no particular expertise in privacy law.
You are simply a conservative poster with their own opinion on the subject.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)There's documented cases where the FBI didn’t pursue cases or share info because the means would be open to discovery.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but, how it typically works is L/E views the images, identifying relevant people and vehicles ... and then, they follow up with the identified people, without disclosing how they knew they were there.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But it should be noted that I live in Seattle and there's WSDOT cameras all over the place on our roads.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We have no reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public.
And, it is best that we conduct ourselves in a manner, conscious of that reality.
beardown
(363 posts)I don't view being seen in public the same as being filmed and recorded in public.
The latter provides a major capability for abuse and control. The former, not so much.
With recorded media, you can zoom in to see things like cell phone or open wallet type detail. Similar to a guy standing on a second floor balcony in a business district using binoculars to view people as they pay their lunch bill or use their cell phone.
With all of the private cameras on businesses and facilities now, it's almost a mute point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to establish who was around and what was happening at the last known location.
randome
(34,845 posts)Jesus, it doesn't matter if one is an expert in privacy law or not, it seems intuitively obvious to me that surveillance cameras are the first thing to check.
And anyone who has a smidgen of experience in law trumps most everyone else on this board. 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because mass surveillance/privacy rights ... or something.
Real life experience only counts if I agree with you; otherwise, my opinion on Theoretical Physics, garnered from watching every episode of Big Bang Theory, puts my opinion on par with that of Stephen Hawking.
Javaman
(62,503 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)
red dog 1
(27,771 posts)(From the June 2, 2015 article:linked above)
"The FBI has used at least 13 shell companies to conceal a fleet of surveillance planes that recently flew over more than 30 cities in 11 states, according to an Associated Press investigation published today.
According to the AP's report, the low-flying planes are equipped with video, and operate without a warrant - although the government says they're for specific investigations.
The AP traced the companies - with names like FVX Research and KQM Aviation - that were used to keep the fleet of at least 50 planes under wraps.
Many of the companies' documents were signed by a 'Robert Lindley', but the government would not confirm to the AP whether that was a government employee."
