Jump to content

Fox News Alert

planetrobert

By planetrobert
in General geocaching topics

Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted

It's a feel good political statement, sounds like. From Forbes:

 

It's so important to military missions that the government couldn't turn off selective availability for civilian gear until the Air Force had developed the capability for something called "selective deniability." In essence, this technique distorts or denies GPS signals over a certain area of the world where U.S. forces are fighting or conducting other sensitive operations, without interfering with its use elsewhere. But it allows American or other friendly forces to still use their own GPS gear, says Glen Gibbons, editor of GPSWorld, a trade magazine based in Eugene, Ore.

 

That article was in October 2, 2001, for reference.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's the latest MSNBC article on the recent order by President Bush. As he puts it, it would only occur under "remarkable circumstances." Because the technology is so often used in extremely important applications (search and rescue, e911) this would have to be pretty extreme to see it happen.

 

I don't have access to the classified material but my interpretation would be that they're setting up streamlined processes for him to place an order which would instantly deny access to GPS in a region during a crisis. I can't say that is a bad thing since it was believed that the 9-11 terrorists used GPS technology to navigate the aircrafts that flew into the twin towers.

 

Actually, my opinion on this would be "about time." If they can't move quickly to deny access to GPS during a crisis by now, we're in big trouble.

 

(edit: added uninformed opinion)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
TresOkies

+TresOkies

Posted
Posted
I don't have access to the classified material....

What the hell are we paying for? B)

Today's forum entertainment, I suppose.

would that be the 5 page brawl going on next door? ;)

:)B)B):lol: What a soap opera! :lol:

Geez, and to think that I wasted my day working and this evening playing poker and drinking beer with friends. I shoulda stayed in front of my monitor and watched that mess evolve... :lol:

 

Hey Jeremy, why don't you appoint an Okie to approve the Tejas caches? That oughta really get them riled up. Hell, I'll even volunteer to take PA's place. 9Key was a good sort about the OK/TX rivalry, I'm sure I can return the favor. (Similar to the Oregon/California border war).

 

-E

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted (edited)
Hey Jeremy, why don't you appoint an Okie to approve the Tejas caches? That oughta really get them riled up

 

Better yet, assign them an approver from New Jersey or Massachussets :cool: .

 

I have a feeling the White House got a sniff of terrorists' chatter regarding some GPSrs. So, in an effort to discourage the terrorists, the WH releases this statement.

 

I just think they're announcing formally what has been policy for alomst 4 years.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
geoPirat

+geoPirat

Posted
Posted

Maybe one of the reasons for Europe's Sat.NavSystem Galileo, a commercial System with guaranteed (worldwide) availabilty.

 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_trans...eo/index_en.htm

 

The US governement officially 'advised' Europe to turn the project down. Should the Galileo System start to work, the US could jam the signals if necessary in an emergency as mentioned by Mr. Rumsfeld.

 

In this article (in german language) http://www.chip.de/artikel/c_artikel_10550...d1=20957&tid2=0 you can read about the backgrounds and that the Europeans plan to use the US Frquences to avoid jamming.

 

Is that a kind o0f GPS - Star Wars? B):cool:

Link to comment
rasntrumpet

rasntrumpet

Posted
Posted (edited)
I don't have access to the classified material....

What the hell are we paying for?

 

 

They can't do this to us! B) We've got lots of money invested in Tupperware! :cool:

 

B)

 

With this post I just lost my TADPOLE status. Years from now, they will ask "How did you loose your TADPOLE?"

Edited by rasntrumpet
Link to comment
jdoe

jdoe

Posted
Posted

Interesting article. One item I didn't see was what would happen when Galileo GPS system goes up. When it does, Galileo is suppose to be compatible with current GPSrs.

 

The article is a good read, but shouldn't affect us too much since they would only do it when we're being attacked.

Link to comment
wolves shepherd

+wolves shepherd

Posted
Posted

Well, after all, it is a MILITARY system that they just let us use. Of course, a lot of military carry civilian GPS because it's lighter and smaller and easier to get a hold of. (I've yet to see a real-live Military Plugger, but I've seen lots of soldiers carrying Garmins and Magellans.)

 

I agree, it's a feel-good thing to comfort arm-chair security advisors who sit and ponder some terrorist using an ETrex to guide their WMD into the local Wal-Mart.

 

I reality, that's HIGHLY unlikely. It takes a lot of brains to make something like that plus most GPS don't put out data fast enough or accurately enough to guide you're home-made cruise missle worth a hoot anyway.

 

This whole idea was discussed on sci.geo.satellite-nav back around the time when SA went off, and many times before and since, I'm sure.

Link to comment
ShadowAce

+ShadowAce

Posted
Posted

That last rant aside...

 

This is nothing new or even anything I would worry about. I can say that if this had happened the day I fell off the cliff while looking for a geocache I might be a tad worried..

 

I was able to get SAR to my location only after I could tell them my coordinates (in three different formats). If it had been turned off they would not have found me nearly as timely as they had. This is an example of why I do not fear the big bad government just 'flipping' the switch whenever they want to.

 

If they find airplanes flying without pilots being guided by GPSr's then turning it off might be a quick way to down the aircraft. hehehe

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
Please don't reply questioning me either, I am a pilot, I know what cities look like from the air, I know how easy it is to fly a plane (considering it was already in the air). I know for a fact that cities (large or small) are very easy to see from long distances in the air. From less that 3000' AGL I am able to see Chicago quite clearly from over 70 miles away.

Oh sorry. Perhaps you missed the point that this is an area for discourse.

 

I did say "I believe", so I didn't qualify that info, but it is conceivable that someone with little knowledge about flying a commercial plane but know how to steer it would rather use a GPS instead of complicated equipment to, say, follow an arrow. I agree that you can see something from far away but if you're planning something of this magnitude with limited knowledge, you would want to have a backup plan that is simple to execute if visibility is poor.

 

Are you saying I don't know how GPS technology works?

Link to comment
The Leprechauns

+The Leprechauns

Posted
Posted

Recently I read the report of the 9/11 Commission. The first plane to hit the World Trade Center took off from Boston. Now, if you're a poorly trained terrorist pilot flying under high-stress conditions, you'd want to plan a way to be certain that you could get to New York City from the point where you took over control of the plane. That point, if I'm not mistaken, was in upstate New York, several hundred miles north of the Twin Towers. There was a map of the flight pattern for each plane in the report. The plane destined for the White House or Capitol -- which crashed near Shanksville, PA -- was taken over in Northern Ohio. I can't recall the precise takeover locations of the other two planes, so I won't make assertions about them. The point being, it was *not* simply a matter of taking off from Newark or JFK or LaGuardia and keeping the Twin Towers in visual sight the whole time.

 

As for GPS usage, it is likewise documented in the 9/11 Commission report that the terrorists made inquiries of Garmin and Magellan about GPS receivers, that they visited stores to shop for GPS receivers, etc.

 

So having selective deniability seems a logical response to these findings from the investigation.

Link to comment
at101

at101

Posted
Posted

I know I said that last one was it but, just one more.

 

The point I should have been trying to get across is that they used what they had. Just like the gun debate, if one weapon is not available, they will find another. Except in this case it is about navigation methods. The government is just looking for a place to pass the blame onto. Ok, GPS is deactivated, that won't stop it, they will just pull out a map. Its just a matter of false security.

 

Jeremy, I'm sorry that it escalated into this so fast, and for implying that you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

With this, I am gone for good.

Link to comment
Jeremy

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
The point I should have been trying to get across is that they used what they had. Just like the gun debate, if one weapon is not available, they will find another. Except in this case it is about navigation methods.

Your initial rant (your words) was that my quote was continuing to promote some faulty message from the press who had reported this after 9-11. I just tried to point out my logical reasoning for bringing up that press statement, which seems logical from a technical point of view.

 

The government is just looking for a place to pass the blame onto.  Ok, GPS is deactivated, that won't stop it, they will just pull out a map.  Its just a matter of false security.

 

Not really. It is part of a larger plan to increase security. Yes, I admit that Selective Deniability has been around for a while but a quick button to turn that sucker on is a win in my book. If that is what the classified documents says, anyway.

 

There doesn't seem to be any blame game here. And maybe you can't stop it but you can sure disrupt it. Remove an information source from your enemy and you have a weaker enemy.

 

Jeremy, I'm sorry that it escalated into this so fast, and for implying that you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

Stick around. This is just a mild debate. I wasn't actually upset or anything.

Link to comment
at101

at101

Posted
Posted
Your initial rant (your words) was that my quote was continuing to promote some faulty message from the press who had reported this after 9-11. I just tried to point out my logical reasoning for bringing up that press statement, which seems logical from a technical point of view.

I said that I didn't direct that at you and if it came across as that I didn't intend for that. That post just prompted me.

 

From your first post, it appeared as though you just saw it on the news and posted what they told you. I didn't think much about it and I just get tired of everyone doing that when they don't know the whole (or even half) of the story. It now appears, however, that you have been following this and know what they are talking about.

 

I understand everyone wanting to be able to turn off the most precise navigation system available, but the truth is, it will not fix the problem, it only delays it or sidesteps the whole issue. You (collective) may feel safer if we are not able to use it, but they will always have other methods to achieve the same goals. Really all this does is slow them down, and if it is extensive enough, slow our own people down in the response.

 

If it will slow them down enough for something to be done then it is a great idea. If they know of it and plan for it then all it does is make them smarter at being able to get arround our safeguards.

Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted
The government is just looking for a place to pass the blame onto.  Ok, GPS is deactivated, that won't stop it, they will just pull out a map.  Its just a matter of false security.

FYI...

Remember, the plane that hit the Pentagon was reported to be actually going for the White House. They could not find it among the buildings in DC aparantly because the plane did a 360 degree high speed turn decending about 7,000 feet. The WTC is so big you cannot miss it. The White House is actually tucked into several buildings and can be hard to see from the air. The Pentagon is pretty recognizable from the air, so they turned for it and hit it.

The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west ... Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west." Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building. "And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien. But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver.
Link to comment
Jeep_Dog

+Jeep_Dog

Posted
Posted
I don't have access to the classified material but my interpretation would be that they're setting up streamlined processes for him to place an order which would instantly deny access to GPS in a region during a crisis. I can't say that is a bad thing since it was believed that the 9-11 terrorists used GPS technology to navigate the aircrafts that flew into the twin towers.

I doubt anything has changed with the system. The satellites are built to encrypt the signals, and the encryption system is tuned to allow or disallow of certain pieces of information from being understood by the receiver.

 

In response to some other posts, it is not a regional "shut down," per se. Rather, I would hazard to guess a streamlined system that would allow federal agencies to tell the satellites to begin encoding the signals, so that only devices with decryption ability would be capable of using the signals for navigation.

 

Amen Jeremy. Getting a streamlined system to prevent potential enemies from navigating is something I would expect from a government waging a war against enemies that have demonstrated the capability to operate on our own turf.

Link to comment
Abner Ravenwood US

+Abner Ravenwood US

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal to anybody.  The GPS system is a government/military tool.  It's pretty common sense that they'd have a way to "turn it off".

 

So by that same logic, the Internet started out as a DARPA project and I am quite sure that many of the net's backbones run through quasi-defense/civilian facilities. If "W" says shutdown the Internet because terrorists are using it to communicate about an imminent attack, don't you think we just might experience a mysterious network outage?

 

You guys need to stop drinking the Red State Kool-Aid and wise up before you wake up one morning and everything you've come to enjoy is gone.

Link to comment
twilliams

+twilliams

Posted
Posted

I'm a little suprised at the idea that the belief the govt. already does, or should be able to turn off GPS easily or that it's not a big deal. GPS is so commonly used in critical navigation systems (especially vritical at night or in poor visibility) that actually turning it off could cost a great deal in terms of loss of life and property. Not to mention, more cynically, that simply turning it off once could cost a lot to businesses that require GPS be considered reliable to stay in business.

 

I doubt, as the whitehouse statement elludes to that the capability would ever be used except in the absolutely most critical circumstances. But, hey, I also don't think that terrorists are going to need to rely on GPS to strike, or even if they did that you'd know about it in time to turn off the system. And, whether they used it or not on 9/11 they certainly didn't need to.. planes have been flying IFR for decades without GPS (which isn't the same as it being safe to turn off once people are using it ..on final approach for instance)

 

-t-

Link to comment
Kermode

Kermode

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am sure that when the states gets (if) "attacked" that the "attacker" wont really need GPS to find it.

Also if you guys get "attacked" again I am sure that you will all be watching TV and being looky loos at the "attack" sites and not really too worried about the GPS being turned off for purposes of national security.

In reality if you turned on CNN right now and it showed the states being "attacked" would you:

 

1 stay home and watch it .........or

2 Go geocaching

 

if you picked 2 and you found that the GPS signal were blocked would you:

 

1 Go home and watch CNN.......or

2 Call Bush and tell him to turn it back on.

 

It probably wouldnt get turned off anyway because if the States was "attacked" again Bush would probably act the way he did last time which was do absolutely nothing for 1 hour. (oops he was reading a story about sheep to kids I guess that is not nothing)

 

The GPS wasnt turned off on 9/11 because it appears that the states set up the attacks and new they were coming. We all know too that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryho...ntagon.php#Main

There was really no need to turn off GPS on 911 because it appears to have been an orchestrated event planned by the Government and there were no terrorists so there was no need to turn off GPS http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

 

Propoganda Sucks

Edited by Yukon Cornelius
Link to comment
nobby.nobbs

nobby.nobbs

Posted
Posted

like lots of conspiracy theories we'll never know the answer, our kids or grand kids might but we won't.

 

it'll be annoying but i'm sure i'll cope if he turns the gps network off ever. i can still walk in the woods just finding the caches will be more of a challenge!

 

that's always assuming the man can read the sign saying on/off and work out what to do!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...