Radiolab – "Eye in the Sky" (June 18, 2015)

Hosts: Jad Abumrad & Robert Krulwich, with Minouche Zomorodi and Alex Goldmark (from WNYC’s Note to Self)
Theme: The episode investigates "eye in the sky" surveillance technology originally developed for military use and its controversial potential for use by civilian police departments. Through technical breakdowns, real-world case studies, and ethical debate, the episode asks: If we can watch everything, should we?

Overview

The episode centers around the invention and consequences of wide-area aerial surveillance technology—originally developed to combat insurgency in Iraq—and its attempted use in U.S. cities like Dayton, Ohio. The hosts (with reporting by Note to Self’s Minouche Zomorodi and Alex Goldmark) discuss technical details, dramatic real-life stories, public reactions, and the profound privacy versus security questions the technology raises.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction to the Technology and Its Inventor

• Ross McNutt (military engineer, ex-Air Force, MIT PhD, founder of Persistent Surveillance Systems) developed “Project AngelFire”: a plane-mounted camera array capable of continuously photographing entire cities and tracking incidents as they unfold—backwards and forwards in time ([03:01], [04:59]).
  • "Bombs going off are pretty easy to detect in images. The problem is, how do you go from a bomb going off backwards in time to be able to figure out who planted it?" (Ross McNutt, [04:26])
• The system was conceived during the Iraq War to combat IED attacks (improvised explosive devices) ([03:35]–[04:14]).

2. How the System Works

• Cameras attached to a plane fly 15–16,000 feet above a city, taking high-resolution images every second, covering 25 square miles.
  • "Every second it takes a still image of the entire city... and then beams it down to an operator." ([06:04])
• Operators can scrub backwards/forwards in time, following the path of suspects or vehicles after (and before) a major incident ([06:33], [07:01]).

3. Transition to Civilian Use: Dayton, Ohio Case Study

• After military applications, McNutt pitched the technology to U.S. police forces to address urban crime.
  • "The U.S. cities have just as large a problem... Only it's not IEDs, it's crime." (Ross McNutt, [09:09])
• Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl agreed to a test: A five-day surveillance of the city ([09:26], [10:01]).
• Case Example: Tracking a burglary in real time by following a blurry image of a white van, culminating in a rapid police response and arrest ([10:23]–[12:07]).
  • Analyst Alex Blassingame describes the process: "The human brain and the human eyes are very, very evolved to pick out movement." ([11:23])

4. Ethical Tension: Safety vs. Privacy

• The hosts and reporters oscillate between awe at the technology’s power and deep discomfort about its implications.
  • "This is so weird. This is like having a superpower." (Robert Krulwich, [12:15])
  • "I just feel sad. It's like we're all just these little dots. It just seems like the antithesis of what... police departments seem to be trying to do..." (Minouche Zomorodi, [12:25])
• The technology theoretically supports oversight of both officers and citizens.
  • "There’s nothing in this system that prevents you from having effective community policing at the same time... This lets us watch all the officers in a 25 square mile area all at once." (Ross McNutt, [13:14])
• Robert Krulwich worries about the misuse of such surveillance in everyday life (e.g. tracking cheat spouses, red light runners, realtors checking on tenants):
  • "If the information exists that will show what my pixel was actually doing, then I'm a little less free." ([13:45])

5. Juarez, Mexico: High-Stakes Deployment

• The team describes deployment in Juarez, Mexico (one of the world’s most violent cities at the time, with 300 murders a month, 52 kidnappings a week) ([15:59]–[16:08]).
• Case study: Following the murder of a female police officer, analysts use footage to identify stakeout vehicles and map connections, discovering a cartel headquarters ([17:04]–[20:01]).
  • "If you follow all four of these cars... you find out who they meet up with... and you see that a whole bunch of those cars are headed to one place... This house appears to be their cartel headquarters." (Ross McNutt, [19:55])
• A U.S. government source claims this data was instrumental in bringing down a cartel responsible for ~1,500 murders ([20:17]).

6. Emotional Reactions & Philosophical Debate

• Reporters and hosts debate their changed feelings after seeing the dramatic results:
  • "I felt ashamed of myself, because the reason why I'm so excited about it is... it's in a country where I don't live." (Minouche Zomorodi, [20:58])
  • Reporter Andy confesses: "I stopped being a good journalist because I picked a side. It feels wrong to not solve these crimes that we can solve." ([21:16])
• Jad struggles with the abstractness of privacy loss:
  • "The advantages are always so concrete and the trade-offs always feel so abstract. I feel like… there's something being lost here, but I can never quite put my finger on it." ([14:24])

7. Community Response: Dayton’s Public Forum

• Despite impressive demonstrations, Dayton ultimately rejects the technology after public debate ([23:22]–[25:59]).
  • City Commission’s Cary Gray recounts a divided room: Some wanted the technology ("I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't care what people see me doing"), others saw it as a "grotesque invasion of privacy," with the rest unsure but asking technical questions ([23:50]–[25:20]).
  • "There was no way that you could trust government with this volume of information and this breadth of information." (Cary Gray, [24:35])
• The debate stalls adoption for now, with the technology’s future hanging in the balance ([26:02]–[26:11]).

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• Ross McNutt on Military Motivation:
  "I had 38 students working for me—for two years—but eventually they developed what became known as Project Angelfire." ([05:01])
• Jad Abumrad on Modern Dilemmas:
  "Today we’re going to look at the can and the should." ([02:48])
• Robert Krulwich’s Ethical Worry:
  "If the information exists that will show what my pixel was actually doing, then I’m a little less free." ([13:45])
• Minouche’s Emotional Conflict:
  "I felt ashamed of myself, because ... it’s still not okay for us." ([20:58])
• Andy Mills’ Conversion:
  "I stopped being a good journalist because I picked a side. It feels wrong to not solve these crimes that we can solve." ([21:16])
• City Commission’s Public Sentiment:
  "A quarter of the people were supportive... another group... believed that this was a grotesque invasion of privacy... the rest didn't have enough information." (Cary Gray, [23:50])

Important Segments and Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | Introduction to Ross McNutt and Project AngelFire | 02:59–05:01 | | Technical Explanation of Surveillance System | 05:01–07:13 | | Dayton, OH Trial: Real-world Police Use | 09:09–12:07 | | Privacy vs. Security Debate | 12:11–14:44 | | Juarez, Mexico: Surveillance in Extreme Violence | 15:59–20:48 | | Emotional/Philosophical Reactions by Hosts/Reporters | 20:48–22:43 | | Dayton Public Forum — Community Reception | 23:22–25:59 |

Episode Tone and Language

The episode blends storytelling, investigative journalism, and philosophical inquiry with the show's characteristic curiosity and playfulness—often punctuated with moments of awe, anxiety, and wry humor. The language balances technical accuracy, emotional honesty, and accessibility, capturing both the fascination with technological possibility and the unease about its social ramifications.

Summary

“Eye in the Sky” is a richly reported, nuanced exploration of ever-watching surveillance technology, tracing its journey from military innovation to American cities. Through dramatic real-world cases, personal confessions of ethical discomfort, and a contentious community debate in Dayton, Radiolab grapples with the essential modern dilemma: When technology makes omniscience possible, what kind of society do we choose to build?