# Mysterious low-flying plane over Twin Cities raises questions of surveillance



## Ooh-Rah (May 30, 2015)

Hmmm...all signs point to this being a govt plane of some type.  Especially with the FBI's non-denial, denial.  I guess I have to fall back on the "it's not me they are looking for" point of view, but what is most interesting to me is that this story could not have been reported even 5 years ago.  We are now to the point where some dude with an iPhone can not only say "I saw something weird", but "here is the radar flight path to go with it!".

_The plane’s flight path, recorded by the website flightradar24.com, would eventually show that it circled downtown Minneapolis, the Mall of America and Southdale Center at low altitude for hours starting at 10:30 p.m., slipping off radar just after 3 a.m._ 

If you click on the map within the pic, you can actually watch the flight path.

Strange times we live in, strange times indeed.

LINK


----------



## SpitfireV (May 30, 2015)

Interesting but not surprising.


----------



## RackMaster (May 30, 2015)




----------



## Blizzard (May 31, 2015)

I don't know who's defining this as "low-flying" but I certainly wouldn't based on the info from flightradar (assuming it's reasonably accurate).  The aircraft is reportedly a Cessna 182, for crying out loud.  He was typically between 6200 - 8000 ft. (don't know if that's AGL or MSL).  Field elevations in the area are approx. 1000 ft.  So, no matter how you look at it he was flying pretty standard altitudes for a small aircraft; certainly not considered "low".   By comparison, search pattern altitudes are typically 1000 ft AGL.


----------



## Ranger Psych (May 31, 2015)

yeah, but 5-6k AGL orbits, some areas of which are pylon turns, are significantly not normal flight patterns. 


Ooh-Rah said:


> Hmmm...all signs point to this being a govt plane of some type.  Especially with the FBI's non-denial, denial.  I guess I have to fall back on the "it's not me they are looking for" point of view, *but what is most interesting to me is that this story could not have been reported even 5 years ago*.  We are now to the point where some dude with an iPhone can not only say "I saw something weird", but "here is the radar flight path to go with it!".



Actually, Flightaware and other services have been linked in for flight tracking for some time.  We used a couple tools, free (although the company also had a paid account that didn't work 90% of the time) to monitor flights at the FBO MC and I worked at.


----------



## AWP (May 31, 2015)

Given technological advancements over the last decade+ I don't think an orbit of 6-8k is odd. It depends on what you're doing and what you're doing it with. The orbits though... that should be the first red flag.


----------



## Brill (May 31, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Given technological advancements over the last decade+ I don't think an orbit of 6-8k is odd. It depends on what you're doing and what you're doing it with. The orbits though... that should be the first red flag.



Orbiting over the mall...pilot was obviously looking for just the right parking spot.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 31, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Given technological advancements over the last decade+ I don't think an orbit of 6-8k is odd. It depends on what you're doing and what you're doing it with. The orbits though... that should be the first *red flag*.



I had nothing to do with that.  There are pilots who do low overflying of areas with Real Estate and land developers on board. They take some detailed pictures of areas for several reasons.  Later the picture takers knock on doors of the homes/developments photographed, and try to sell these "great, exclusive" photos of their homes/property. They are usually one step above scam runners trying to make a buck or two. Some of the photos are ;pretty good, and some actually sell. The aircraft pilot charges a flat rate for fuel and flying hours. Others charge for fuel, a reduced hourly rate, and a percentage for each photo that sells. There are other reasons, and if planning criminal activities, a photo of the aircraft showing the "N" number is a good idea. Calls to the FAA can, and have been made about aircraft in low repeated area orbits. If it happens over our development, calls to the FAA, and local airstrip, do happen.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 2, 2015)

Well now that its made the news, here's your answer: 

The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.

The planes' surveillance equipment is generally used without a judge's approval, and the FBI said the flights are used for specific, ongoing investigations. In a recent 30-day period, the agency flew above more than 30 cities in 11 states across the country, an AP review found.

Aerial surveillance represents a changing frontier for law enforcement, providing what the government maintains is an important tool in criminal, terrorism or intelligence probes. But the program raises questions about whether there should be updated policies protecting civil liberties as new technologies pose intrusive opportunities for government spying.

U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department's inspector general.

"The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." Allen added that the FBI's planes "are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance."

But the planes can capture video of unrelated criminal activity on the ground that could be handed over for prosecutions.

Some of the aircraft can also be equipped with technology that can identify thousands of people below through the cellphones they carry, even if they're not making a call or in public. Officials said that practice, which mimics cell towers and gets phones to reveal basic subscriber information, is rare.

Officials say cellphone surveillance is rare, although the AP found in recent weeks FBI flights orbiting large, enclosed buildings for extended periods where aerial photography would be less effective than electronic signals collection. *Those included* above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and *the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota.*

Link


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 2, 2015)

And there's the lack of surprise.


----------



## poison (Jun 2, 2015)

Yeah, I don't believe a word of their explanation.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 2, 2015)

Geez, this is not a surprise, hell it's even on their website, vague but there.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cirg/surveillance-and-aviation

Our PD has used the local FBI field office aviation support, gone up in the aircraft as a spotter for criminal cases or used the FLIR capability to try and locate missing endangered persons at night.

This statement "which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department's inspector general."  completely understand....we use non-attributable  plates on our PD UC cars, in this day and age you have to build a backstop so bad guys cant search the internet for license plates, tail numbers...etc.

I think people are getting up in arms for no real reason....just my 2 cents.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 2, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> Geez, this is not a surprise, hell it's even on their website, vague but there.
> 
> http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cirg/surveillance-and-aviation
> 
> ...


Why the fake companies?

Why not just i.d. the plane as a govt resource?


----------



## Scotth (Jun 2, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Why the fake companies?
> 
> Why not just i.d. the plane as a govt resource?



My guess is if you identify the collection you can subpoena the results.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 2, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Why the fake companies?
> 
> Why not just i.d. the plane as a govt resource?



Somehow we have a government that is so involved in misdirection, that being honest and real is no longer possible.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 2, 2015)

Scotth said:


> My guess is if you identify the collection you can subpoena the results.


That shouldn't be a problem.
Discovery shouldn't be a guessing game.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 2, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Why the fake companies?
> 
> Why not just i.d. the plane as a govt resource?



Because bad guys can run plates or tail numbers on paid for websites....local law enforcement use non-attrituble names and addresses on undercover vehicles.....why wouldn't a federal organization who investigates organized crime, foriegn counterintelligence...etc not do the same?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 3, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Why the fake companies?
> 
> Why not just i.d. the plane as a govt resource?



Same reason surveillance cars aren't registered to The G.

EDIT: Or, same as Kraut said ;)


----------



## AWP (Jun 3, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> Because bad guys can run plates or tail numbers on paid for websites....local law enforcement use non-attrituble names and addresses on undercover vehicles.....why wouldn't a federal organization who investigates organized crime, foriegn counterintelligence...etc not do the same?



Unless they can remove their transponder data from aviation websites/ radar feeds then people will be able to ID them as something special. As long as an N-number displays their ID won't be a secret, so an N-number against specific behavior makes secrecy a moot point.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 3, 2015)

They could remove it, military flights are rarely shown.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 3, 2015)

Kraut783 said:


> Because bad guys can run plates or tail numbers on paid for websites....local law enforcement use non-attrituble names and addresses on undercover vehicles.....why wouldn't a federal organization who investigates organized crime, foriegn counterintelligence...etc not do the same?


Register it to a non-LE Federal Agency, Dept of Commerce for example.

The fake company thing is wrong, what's next Govt Bread Trucks?


----------



## Etype (Jun 4, 2015)

In a 100% permissive environment, why are planes the preferred method? I could understand it for a rural area, but for an urban area it seems unnecessary. 

Why spend money to fly around and do it? A guy with a backpack walking down the street or a guy in a 1997 Toyota Corolla could do the same thing. 

Law enforcement loves whiz bang military technology.


----------



## Brill (Jun 4, 2015)

Etype said:


> In a 100% permissive environment, why are planes the preferred method? I could understand it for a rural area, but for an urban area it seems unnecessary.
> 
> Why spend money to fly around and do it? A guy with a backpack walking down the street or a guy in a 1997 Toyota Corolla could do the same thing.
> 
> Law enforcement loves whiz bang military technology.



Flight pay!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm not arguing for/against the actual duties/tasks being performed, however the amount of area covered by an elevated airborne antenna array will be significantly larger as well as quite possibly have better resolution of data gathered compared to a ground based system.


----------



## Brill (Jun 10, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> I'm not arguing for/against the actual duties/tasks being performed, however the amount of area covered by an elevated airborne antenna array will be significantly larger as well as quite possibly have better resolution of data gathered compared to a ground based system.



Sometimes more data equals more interference.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 10, 2015)

Introducing, in this corner.... DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS! ;)  

Behavior and patterns does lend towards getting a mild idea of what they're doing and with what.


----------



## Blizzard (Jun 11, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> I'm not arguing for/against the actual duties/tasks being performed, however the amount of area covered by an elevated airborne antenna array will be significantly larger as well as quite possibly have better resolution of data gathered compared to a ground based system.


It can be repositioned in a fairly broad range fairly quickly as well.  In addition, unlike rotorcraft, operational costs of a 182 are not completely unreasonable, even at government rates - approx $160 to $200 per flight hour, give or take a few $.


----------



## AWP (Jun 11, 2015)

This wouldn't be a topic of conversation if people trusted the gov't.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jun 11, 2015)

The major thing that makes me jealous is airframes in general. Factory G1000 C206, for example. No guarantees this is as pimped out as that, but the fed agency birds I've done ground work for were slick.


----------



## AWP (Aug 21, 2015)

I ran across the link below and thought of this thread:
Regulations.gov

Given the 2014 date I'd like to think we have a thread on it, but didn't see one.

Buried on pages 325 - 327 are the relevant sections. I could be wrong but they read as "We can have just about any judge approve a warrant and we'll try to notify you, but no guarantees. If you are behind a VPN...lolwut."



> Finally, the proposed amendment includes a change to Rule 41(f)(1)(C), which requires
> notice that a search has been conducted. New language would be added at the end of that provision
> indicating the process for providing notice of a remote access search. The rule now requires that
> notice of a physical search be provided “to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the
> ...



Planes are the least of our worries.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 21, 2015)

Bah, who needs or wants a VPN for the internet anyway, right?


----------

