backtop

Blog: Science U.S. General Threatened by Google Earth
Nirav Sanghani (Blog) - June 27, 2007 5:00 PM
Print 14 comment(s) - last by omnicronx.. on Jul 13 at 2:03 PM
Satellite mapping software could pose a possible threat to nation's security

Watch out Google, Yahoo and Mapquest, homeland security is coming after you next.  The head of the U.S. Air Force intelligence and surveillance said last Thursday that data available commercially through online mapping software can pose a danger to national security.  Google Earth was picked out of the group for its ability to give users an astronaut's view of the earth and allow them to zoom in and out to point where they can see people's homes.

"No one's going to undo commercial satellite imagery," Deputy Chief of Staff for Intellgience, Survelance and Reconnaissance, Lt. Gen. David Deptula said. "It's something that was a closely guarded secret not that long ago and now everybody's got access to it."

One problem with mapping software Deptula touched upon is the imaging cannot be rolled back.  Because any individual can access the satellite map, it leaves certain locations open to the public for view that should not be seen.  When asked if any precautions were being taken to black out or set restrictions on top-secret locations, the Deptula said he was not aware of any plans.

The only measures governments are taking to conceal top secret locations are camouflaging the locations, concealing information and finding means to deceive the satellites.  Deptula did not release any other details on the extent of concern.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Typical American Media
By dok405 on 6/27/2007 8:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why do uninformed people always make comments on issues that have been brought up again and again in the media? In all the General's comments, he's either completely wrong or
doesn't watch the news.

First off, easy-to-obtain commercial imagery (ie. Google Earth), are composed of undated photos that could be years old. An organization which was serious about its actions would not consider Google Earth to be a credible source.

Also, the General states that a credit card is needed to access said commercial imagery (as stated by the original source). Google does not (directly) charge anything for its services. The lack of tracking poses a greater security risk than the service itself, but was not even commented on.

The General also states that he is unaware of any attempts to sensor satellite imagery, whereas DailyTech ran an article a few weeks ago where Dick Cheney's house is blurred on Google Earth (search: 1 Observatory Circle, Washington DC). I sincerely hope that a deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance would be aware of this.




RE: Typical American Media
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2007 11:10:56 PM , Rating: 4
> "The General also states that he is unaware of any attempts to sensor satellite imagery, whereas ...Dick Cheney's house is blurred on Google Earth "

Oops. Actually, he said he's unaware of any military effort to censor commercial satellite photography. It wasn't the Air Force that blurred Dick Cheney's house; it was Google itself.

> "An organization which was serious about its actions would not consider Google Earth to be a credible source"

Large military installations don't change radically in a few years. Nor is the White House a double-wide trailer, that gets often moved to a new location.

> "Also, the General states that a credit card is needed ... Google does not (directly) charge anything for its services"

Oops again. Google Earth Pro is a charge service...$400/year, in fact.

> "Why do uninformed people always make comments on issues that have been brought up again and again...?"

Good question. Why do they?


RE: Typical American Media
By dok405 on 6/28/2007 1:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
> Large military installations don't change radically in a few years. Nor is the White House a double-wide trailer, that gets often moved to a new location.

Without any supplemental intelligence, a basic geography of a potential target is not very useful. You'd learn more from a pamphlet given out during an hour tour of the Whitehouse than from any amount of time viewing satellite imagery.

> Oops again. Google Earth Pro is a charge service...$400/year, in fact.

For the purposes of satellite imagery, both the free version and the pro version are the same; the maps used are identical. The features of the pro version would not contribute to a potential security risk.


RE: Typical American Media
By masher2 (blog) on 6/28/2007 9:46:11 AM , Rating: 3
> "Without any supplemental intelligence, a basic geography of a potential target is not very useful"

On the contrary, it's extremely valuable. Satellite imagery shows things you don't see from a guided tour...and for the huge number of targets which don't offer guided tours through them, its invaluable. The location of guard posts, outbuildings, storage tanks, possible access roads or paths...even so much as to what equipment is mounted on a roof. And, of course, in cases where the location of the site itself is unknown, satellite imagery is critical.

> "For the purposes of satellite imagery, both the free version and the pro version are the same; the maps used are identical..."

Incorrect again. Google Earth Pro allows one to print maps at a resolutions above whats visible on-screen. Furthermore, it comes with several additional layers, such as one that automatically identifies military sites, shopping malls, airports, etc.


RE: Typical American Media
By omnicronx on 7/13/2007 2:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incorrect again. Google Earth Pro allows one to print maps at a resolutions above whats visible on-screen. Furthermore, it comes with several additional layers, such as one that automatically identifies military sites, shopping malls, airports, etc.


incorrect, although what you said is included is there, it also has updated maps that are not the same as the free version. an example is my house on google maps does not contain my new pool, but on pro it does, and i got my pool over a year and a half ago


RE: Typical American Media
By Chillin1248 on 6/28/2007 12:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
I remember reading on FAS or Globalsecurity about a congress briefing on satellite jamming, quite interesting stuff they had there.

I remember reading that there were several ways to jam a location to most forms of sattelite imagery:

1)- Some sort of (Infrared?) light directed at the sattelite imagery system.

2)- Directed heat, thought I didn't understand this one entirely.

It was a long time ago but I am sure those two came up (or I got a great imagination) as well as some other exotic methods. At the end of the day, commercial sattelite imagery can be jammed/blocked over specific sensitive locations was my impression, in fact I might just go look for a link.

-------
Chillin


RE: Typical American Media
By Chillin1248 on 6/28/2007 12:32:53 AM , Rating: 4
O.K., here we go:

quote:
The Pentagon in 1997 conducted a space control demonstration in which it fired a ground-based laser at one of its own satellites, an experimental infrared imaging craft. Experts say a laser might be used to flood or dazzle an imaging satellite’s sensitive optics, effectively blinding it.

http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive03/satellite...

More reading:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/bud...
http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704space.asp
http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/files/nuclear/Laura%2...

-------
Chillin


RE: Typical American Media
By SandmanWN on 6/29/2007 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting, so if I don't want my house/secret government compound/military installation to appear on Google Earth or any other commercial satellite imagery then I have to invest in a laser beam.

Oh and not just one laser beam but a few thousand and tracking systems so I can direct my lasers at the many thousands of commercial satellites in orbit. Sounds like its easier to avoid the paparazzi.

You would figure they would have something like a National "do not call list" except one that asks for a National "do not spy on my large military installation used to test future defensive and offensive weaponry to protect our country... list." :P


This General is generating FUD
By Fritzr on 6/27/2007 10:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
This is the second article I've read on this subject. The previous one several weeks ago went into much more detail as to why Satellite Imagery is dangerous and some of the things being done to control it.

The US based services do censor. The problem noted is that the US cannnot censor non-US sources. They mentioned a protest by the Indian government about photos of an airbase that showed secret aircraft. The response to that complaint was that they could do as the US has done for years ... keep them under cover when the satellites can see.

The article was in response to a US requirement that satellite imagery be and is being censored. However that applies only to US companies. US law does not stop Russia, China and anyone else with a satellite from using their imagery

Apologies for the lack of link, but I can't find it now ... think it was in Yahoo! news




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/27/2007 11:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, the U.S. having arguably the largest and most robust sattelite network in the world, has figured out ways to prevent even military grade imaging of their secret stuff. They keep it under tight wraps, but every once in a while theres a minor slip up. Other countries are catching on to this as well, so eventually it will level out the playing field as to how good our satellite surveilance is. In the meantime we should get to work developing those killer sattelites we had planned back in the late 60's :)


RE: This General is generating FUD
By wrekd on 6/27/2007 11:41:48 PM , Rating: 6
I served in the U.S. Army and work now as a contractor at a facility that tries very hard not to be mentioned publicly. Cameras, maps and drawings are prohibited. I understand OPSEC and the need for security. I also think General Flyboy should blow it out his ass.

The world can view the planet in its entirety, and it is an awesome power. I’m sorry to say that Pandora’s Box has already been opened. So what the hell do they expect to do now? Cover and concealment seem like the only options as international censorship is not going to be possible.

“Satellite mapping software could pose a possible threat to nation's security”

Satellite mapping can, has and will continue to be used by the “bad guys”. The same thing can be said about guns, knives and clubs. Adapt and overcome; that’s the name of the game. Because for every “bad guy” that uses Google Earth to stalk their favorite congressman, there are thousands of not so bad people who may actually be curious about our world.


By Gul Westfale on 6/28/2007 2:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
well said. i'd vote for you but i have no votes left :(

also, what took them so long to realise that there was such a service out there?


By FITCamaro on 6/28/2007 12:55:50 PM , Rating: 1
While I agree with you that we have to adapt and overcome, I do think there needs to be a limit. I do think images need to be censored if they already aren't.

Places like Area 51 and (to me) the entire government section of Washington, D.C. should not be on a satellite map available freely to anyone. those images, while not military quality, are still pretty damn accurate. Someone could easily take out the White House using a cruise missile with those maps. Sure they might not get it into the Oval Office's window but they'd be damn close.

I'm not for a lot of government censhorship. But I think certain types are ok. Blocking access to view classified locations on a 3D map are one I see as ok.

I also think the media needs to be controlled to some degree. I just stare with my mouth open when networks like CNN run stories like "How to build a bomb with the chemicals under the sink" where they explain, in detail, what you need. I saw a comic on Last Comic Standing make a joke about this and agreed. All we're doing is basically showing people how to commit crimes. Granted a terrorist already knows these things. But how about the disgruntled postal employee who gets it in his head to blow up the office (sorry postal guy. have to pick on you).

What's next? "Tonight at 11. How a terrorist might take over a nuclear power plant. We'll show you everything you need to know to do it. Stay tuned."


By masher2 (blog) on 6/28/2007 4:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "General Flyboy should blow it out his ass...Adapt and overcome; that’s the name of the game."

Err, that's exactly what the general said. Let me quote him:

quote:
To talk about danger is, if I may, really is irrelevant because it's there....No one's going to undo commercial satellite imagery.
He then goes on to discuss in general terms some ways the government can "adapt and overcome" this new threat.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki