It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hidden Microphones Exposed As Part of Government Surveillance Program In The Bay Area

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Apparently the FBI is up to some snooping in the San Francisco/Oakland area.

Seems they have legal "authority" to plant hidden devices to eavesdrop on conversations.

In trees, under rocks, in light fixtures at bus stops are just some of the places these hidden devices are being placed.

The article claims they are investigating some shady real estate tactics for profit.

Hidden Microphones Exposed As Part of Government Surveillance Program In The Bay Area


Hidden microphones that are part of a clandestine government surveillance program that has been operating around the Bay Area has been exposed.

Imagine standing at a bus stop, talking to your friend and having your conversation recorded without you knowing. It happens all the time, and the FBI doesn’t even need a warrant to do it.

Federal agents are planting microphones to secretly record conversations.






posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Sanctuary Cities come with a few sacrifices.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow, that's freaky.

And that's almost more truly Orwellian than most things I've heard in a long time.

ETA:


FBI agents hid microphones inside light fixtures and at a bus stop outside the Oakland Courthouse without a warrant to record conversations, between March 2010 and January 2011.

Federal authorities are trying to prove real estate investors in San Mateo and Alameda counties are guilty of bid rigging and fraud and used these recordings as evidence.


And


The lawyer . . . told KPIX 5 News that, “Speaking in a public place does not mean that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy…private communication in a public place qualifies as a protected ‘oral communication’… and therefore may not be intercepted without judicial authorization.”


That is the issue, here too: whether these recordings, even though recorded in public, are covert and warrantless and capture a private conversation, so it's a definite legality debate—even though there is no real expectation of privacy in public.


edit on 14-5-2016 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
that is some total BS right there



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
How's that legal?

Isn't CA a state where if you record someone else you must notify them beforehand?

Almost positive CA is a "two-party consent" state in regards to wiretapping, which this is a form of.




California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).



edit on 14-5-2016 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Doesn't surprise me.


There's more to this though. My buddy brought up the fact that other cities did the same to triangulate gun shot locations...could this be that?

www.sacbee.com...

edit on 14-5-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
"Shady real estate tactics for profit"?
That seems like a flimsy reason to rob people of their privacy.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What if you don't mean harm? What kind of scary thing will happen, when they find out I hacked call of duty? Will Sony eavesdrop as well and get the feds to arrest me?

I'm sure the government is protecting you all. If you ain't doing bad #, then why worry... Oh wait.. ATS is a conspiracy site.

Please continue..



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Well, anyone could plant a hidden microphone in a public place. Who's to say they aren't?

People run their mouths to loosely anyway. The verbal vomit that dribbles out of people's mouths with their most intimate details in any given setting amazes me.

I tell people that its important to watch their thoughts, but perhaps I should be telling people to watch their mouths. We don't need to hear every single idiotic thought that pops into your head. Simply because you have the ability to say something, doesn't mean you should.

Believe it or not, some people's brains don't afford them the capacity to have an internal monolouge. They don't "hear" their own voice in their head. What they think about, they say. Their thoughts simply come out as words. When under duress, stress or danger their internal voice shouts at them -- and usually these people claim to have heard "God" or "angels" warning them of danger.

It's a strange thing to ponder...that not more than 500 or so years ago, no one read to themselves. All reading was done out loud. People didn't know how to read silently...and if you were one of the very few to be able to do so, you were seen as being divinely blessed. We still see hold overs today with people unable to read without moving their lips.

Our internal voice has something to do with the corpus callosum that connects the left and right brain hemispheres. Perhaps people that can't internalize their own dialogue have brain damage to that area (be it drug/alcohol use or trauma) or have a brain developmental issue.

*shrug*




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
So the resources and manpower needed to record random people at bus stops etc.. doesn't seem economically viable.
And if they record to people talking about a crime.. how will they know who those people are?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Watch their thoughts?

Touche sir.


I sometimes wonder how and why the deuce people say the idiotic # that they say. Sometimes I observe what almost seems like a subconscious, primal, lower mind blurting of words by some. It's really strange and irritating when you're hyper attentive.
edit on 14-5-2016 by OneGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

Or get their consent.

That's why it's a very interesting and controversial issue. It's in public where you have no expectation of privacy, but it's also a private conversation. That wiretapping consent law would seem to be accurate in that I can't record out conversation w/o your consent, but....

Sidenote: I wonder how, in states with this law, this applies to all the dashcam cop recordings where they don't get people's permission...



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

In CA if I get pulled over, I can't legally record my conversation with a cop without informing him I'm recording the conversation first.

And that's obviously in a public setting.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

Right, so what about the converse? Does he have to inform you he's recording you via dashcam or body cam (if they have bodycam)? Probably not. Also, do you have to simply inform him or also get his *permission*?

I have seen where people have done the same thing, been arrested or cited for recording an officer w/o consent, and have won (because it's in public and it's a public servant).

Different than the OP, but the issue is the law.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
"Shady real estate tactics for profit"?
That seems like a flimsy reason to rob people of their privacy.


Sounds like a cover story. Also means the idea of making secret real estate conversation recordings is now useless.

edit on 5/14/2016 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

From what I understand and in speaking to cops myself, it's legal to record anything in public here but you essentially just have to give notification.

I went thru this with a cop a couple years ago when I was recording a disturbance between neighbors in public and they called the cops on me for recording them, suggesting they didn't give me permission. I had told them beforehand I am going to record to document for later evidence.

Cop showed up and backed me 100%, then informed them I'm completely within my rights to have recorded them. I was told if I had hid in the bushes it would have been illegal but since I declared my intentions in full view of everyone, law was on my side.
edit on 14-5-2016 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Juat like the scenes in the book and movie 1984 - those scenes scared me at the time, even moreso now.

ETA Nothing new about this really, this article is from 2010 in the UK. Link


HIGH-powered spy microphones on street lampposts are being used by snooping council officials to listen in on private conversations.



The so-called Sigard system has been tested in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Coventry. The microphones, connected to CCTV cameras, can recognise aggressive “trigger” words and sounds, then automatically direct cameras to zoom in on the speakers.


I have visions of terrorists saying "Yeah, let's stand under this lampost to discuss our evil plans." (credit to Frankie Boyle for the joke)
edit on 14-5-2016 by 1984hasarrived because: ETA - further data and evidence



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
It's a strange thing to ponder...that not more than 500 or so years ago, no one read to themselves. All reading was done out loud. People didn't know how to read silently...and if you were one of the very few to be able to do so, you were seen as being divinely blessed. We still see hold overs today with people unable to read without moving their lips.


Weird, innit? I remember the exact moment when I realized I could do this. It's one of my first clear memories. Maybe 4. Mom said "you don't have to read everything out loud, read that again without saying anything, it's a lot faster". I recall saying "I can hear myself in my head!" and being absolutely gobsmacked.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, anyone could plant a hidden microphone in a public place. Who's to say they aren't?

People run their mouths to loosely anyway. The verbal vomit that dribbles out of people's mouths with their most intimate details in any given setting amazes me.

I tell people that its important to watch their thoughts, but perhaps I should be telling people to watch their mouths. We don't need to hear every single idiotic thought that pops into your head. Simply because you have the ability to say something, doesn't mean you should.

Believe it or not, some people's brains don't afford them the capacity to have an internal monolouge. They don't "hear" their own voice in their head. What they think about, they say. Their thoughts simply come out as words. When under duress, stress or danger their internal voice shouts at them -- and usually these people claim to have heard "God" or "angels" warning them of danger.

It's a strange thing to ponder...that not more than 500 or so years ago, no one read to themselves. All reading was done out loud. People didn't know how to read silently...and if you were one of the very few to be able to do so, you were seen as being divinely blessed. We still see hold overs today with people unable to read without moving their lips.

Our internal voice has something to do with the corpus callosum that connects the left and right brain hemispheres. Perhaps people that can't internalize their own dialogue have brain damage to that area (be it drug/alcohol use or trauma) or have a brain developmental issue.

*shrug*



I agree. I've always said that it's better to not say enough than to say too much. There's many things people don't need to know, especially in public places.



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Hidden? At least around here they have the decency to put them out in the open. Usually next to the obvious cameras that people are somehow oblivious to until you point them out.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join