[ihaveaquestion (OP)]

Anyone know of any satellite spying going on in the Emirates(U.A.E.) A lot of buzz around here that some people are using satellites to spy on people(listening in on conversations and following people around) and "make their life hard" as they put it. Adding to that things like "I'll buy your family.." etc.

Any thoughts on even if such a thing is possible with use of the electromagnetic spectrum and satellites?

If this post is out of context, where I've posted it, please, do delete it.

[lyner]

It would be amazing if there weren't a few satellites which include UAE in their orbit.
They aren't in Geostationary orbit (much too far away for surveillance) and they go round every couple of hours in 'inclided orbits', covering pretty well everywhere.
None of us is safe in this respect.

[LeeE]

UAVs (Un-manned Aerial Vehicles) are much better for this sort of thing.  They're much cheaper to make and operate, much closer to the subjects and more versatile and responsive to short-notice requirements.  The number of research and development projects in this area is exploding.

In answer to the original question - almost certainly.

[AB Hammer]

LeeE

 You forgot to tell them to brush their teeth and smile.  []

[graham.d]

For satellites, general surveilance of ground installations, yes. Monitoring of individuals and following them around, no - this is Hollywood science fiction at the moment. You could track a vehicle, but following an individual is beyond the technology unless he is on his own walking through the desert (or something similar).

As for monitoring phone calls, this can be done but is not satellite based and would be very hard to implement in this way. All mobile phone base stations have the capability to tap (and re-route in parallel) phone calls as a purchasable option. And guess what, few are sold that do not have such a facility. It is much easier with land line based systems as you might guess. Such facilities are generally used by government security services but there have been cases of others getting access for illegal personal use.

[Bored chemist]

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the satellites are not listening to conversations.
"In space no-one can hear you scream" or gossip for that matter.
They might be listening to mobile phone traffic.

[Pumblechook]

-----They might be listening to mobile phone traffic------

Don't think that is possible.

[Evie]

My only input on this comes from a close association who was a high-ranked officer in a branch of the military. I once asked this individual if we were being watched by satellites, kind of a "Big Brother" query. The individual responded (and this was MANY years ago) that they had satellites that could read the date off of a quarter lying on the ground.  [] []

[Don_1]

Perhaps they should use these satelites to find out where all the quarters and pennies have gone?

Into some thieving bankers pocket I'll wager!

[lyner]

My only input on this comes from a close association who was a high-ranked officer in a branch of the military. I once asked this individual if we were being watched by satellites, kind of a "Big Brother" query. The individual responded (and this was MANY years ago) that they had satellites that could read the date off of a quarter lying on the ground.  [] []

That sounds a bit fanciful. There are diffraction limits which can't be exceeded by too much. The HST might do that because its big enough.
The military always like people to think they can do 'anything' and have super powers. When I was a teenager I bought an Ex US Army combat jacket. It had Size SMALL marked on the label, I remember. There was room for two of us inside it.

[LeeE]

For satellites, general surveilance of ground installations, yes. Monitoring of individuals and following them around, no - this is Hollywood science fiction at the moment. You could track a vehicle, but following an individual is beyond the technology unless he is on his own walking through the desert (or something similar).

I believe this is true for satellites but not for UAVs, which I am pretty sure are used for tracking individuals, usually so they can be assassinated by an air attack, either by a piloted aircraft or by a missile carrying UAV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

[RD]

My only input on this comes from a close association who was a high-ranked officer in a branch of the military. I once asked this individual if we were being watched by satellites, kind of a "Big Brother" query. The individual responded (and this was MANY years ago) that they had satellites that could read the date off of a quarter lying on the ground.  [] []

That sounds a bit fanciful. There are diffraction limits which can't be exceeded by too much. The HST might do that because its big enough.

The Rayleigh criterion gives the relationship between aperture and resolution, (it does not include atmospheric effects).
For a satellite to read the date on a coin on Earth it would have to have an aperture of about 50cm, the Hubble space telescope has an aperture of 2.4 meters. In practice atmospheric effects would be the limiting factor determining what on Earth can be seen from space.

[the grouve]

Anyone know of any satellite spying going on in the Emirates(U.A.E.) A lot of buzz around here that some people are using satellites to spy on people(listening in on conversations and following people around)

I think you'd notice a satellite following you. Maybe it's just me, but I'm quite sure you'd notice.

and "make their life hard" as they put it.

Sounds kinky.

Adding to that things like "I'll buy your family.." etc.

Well why sir! Would you put your family up for sale?

"Just say noo, no! Just say no, just say noo".

and as another question; The satellite says that?....

Old haggard woman: "What times are these, when strange satellites wonder the streets stalking people and saying things like, "I'll buy your family!"..."

Any thoughts on even if such a thing is possible with use of the electromagnetic spectrum and satellites?

So an electromagnetic spectrum follows you too?! I'm not sure if you would notice that. The things they can do these days it's scary.

If this post is out of context, where I've posted it, please, do delete it.

It's in technology. Don't think there is a Stalker satellite thread, so why not here?

[yor_on]

An optical satellite from 1999 was said to have an resolution of around one meter (3.28 feet) in diameter. http://www.space.com/news/gov_imagery_990921.html
Now we seem to be around 1-1.5 decimeter (5-6 inches)    http://science.howstuffworks.com/question529.htm But I don't know really. The article from 1999 states that the US already has Spy satellites capable of 10 centimeters (3.93 inches), even though i have trouble believing that. You can use other optical methods for getting your photos, Infrared for example. Also it is so that the smaller you 'cameras/devices' wavelength is the better 'resolution' it will have.

---
Here is the future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pendry
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/04/21_superlens.shtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11082-superlens-has-its-reach-extended.html
------------

But yes, it is possible to eavesdrop on cellphones, after all they emit radio waves. But you will have to be fairly close to a source as their field strength is weak, if you want to track it.
---------

Although you can follow a cellphone through the amplifying antennas it uses to connect to. That way you will get a rough estimate (depending on the antennas 'density' of placement) of where that phone is, and that will work as long as that phone is on and 'connected' via its simcard. To break that you will have to use that 'off' button

------------------
To call someone up on a private line , or 'break' in on a conversation is possible I think, as they all are routed to amplifying antennas and then centrally treated, especially if they go over land lines or satellites. I know that the Israelis have used that sort of 'destabilization techniques' before with good results, as seen from their perspective And it's quite frightening to hear someone jump in in the middle of a telephone conversation threatening you or your family? If that was what this was about?


Cell phones are not walkie talkies (but they're near:)
Satellite phones connects to satellites directly and if they're encrypted will be hard to eavesdrop on.

We actually had some encrypted cell phones a 'long' time ago. I remember a friend of mine involved in this kind of stuff telling me that, although I don't remember what brand it was. Then your phones for example have an open key and one private (Goggle PGP cryptanalysis) and negotiate a encrypted connection, now no 'outsider' can understand your conversation as long as they can't listen in to your loudspeaker.

But those phones are mostly for military purposes and not easily found I think for private use?

[yor_on]

Studies using negative refractive index materials for Telescopes.

------Quote---------

Telescope resolution using negative refractive index materials.
Jack L. May and Tony Jennetti
Northrop Grumman Mission Systems (USA).
Proceedings of SPIE -- Volume 5166
UV/Optical/IR Space Telescopes: Innovative Technologies and Concepts,
Howard A. MacEwen, Editor, January 2004, pp. 220-227
"Concepts are presented for using negative refractive index (NRI)
materials to design parabolic reflector telescopes and antennas with
resolutions significantly better than the diffractions limit. The main
question we are attempting to answer is can negative refractive
material be used to improve performance of parabolic systems even when
the signal or light source is far away and no evanescent fields are
present when they arrive at the parabolic reflector. The main approach
is to take advantage of any knowledge that we have to recreate the
evanescent fields. Fields are then adapted to improve a performance
measure such a sharper focus or antenna rejection of interference. A
negative refraction index lens is placed between the conventional
reflector and focal plane to shape the point spread function. To
produce telescope resolutions that are better than the diffraction
limit, evanescent fields created by the reflection off of the
parabolic surface are amplified and modified to generate fields that
sharpen the focus. A second approach use available knowledge of an
emitting aperture to synthesize a field at a distance that matches as
closely as possible the field of the emitting aperture. The yet
unproven conclusion is that techniques can be developed that will
improve antenna and telescopes resolution that is better than the
diffraction limit."
http://link.aip.org/link/?PSISDG/5166/220/1 [Abstract only]

If this succeeds then telescope apertures will only need to be a
fraction of their current size to achieve the same resolution. This
will be fundamentally important for space based telescopes.

The revolution in medicine and biology the superlens will allow has
to do with the confirmation of a hypothesized, but controversial, form
of life, the nanobacteria. I believe the nanobacteria will be proven
to exist and will be found to be pathogens for disease in humans.
There are for example some diseases that give the appearance of
infectious disease but for which no infectious agent has been
identified.
One such case is for example kidney stones. Some papers have been
written suggesting nanobacteria as their cause. Very small nanoscale
objects were seen in connection with the kidney stones but these
objects could not be confirmed as being alive.
The problem is these nanoscale objects can be seen for example with
electron microscopes, but this kills any putative life forms being
examined. The new superlens will allow these nanoscale objects to be
observed in optical wavelengths, at smaller sizes than the wavelengths
used, and as I say alive. You could for example do spectroscopy on
them to confirm they contain the organic molecules for life, and
perhaps as well observe their life cycle in real time.
The confirmation of a new form of life previously believed impossible
will certainly be revolutionary. The team that confirms them for
example I believe will be deserving of a Nobel prize. It's just a
matter of time, a short time.


Bob Clark

----End Quote---------------

[engrByDayPianstByNight]

I personally feel that in this day and age, there is a very blurry line between military and civilian reconnaissance, what with the advances in technologies such as location tracking, image processing, remote sensing, etc. Google uses satellite images for civilian use, and although I'm certain their resolution is not nearly as good as those pictures coming out of a military satellite, look some of the controversies it has stirred up the last couple of years when it took photo shots at military installations, nuclear arsenals, etc. Lot of countries are protesting this sort of civilian intrusive penetration, even if it's in the name of satisfying our innocent curiosity.