Discussion of satellite imagery and resolution.

[u-5075]

Sample photo and article at
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/08/n ... y_070819w/
Click on image to enlarge. Not bad resolution!


Satellite imagery raises security questions
Navy Times
By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted ] to be as quiet as possible. That [propeller] is national secret,” Hughes said. “This is something that should not be seen from space or an airplane or any other way.”

Such imagery, including pictures of a new Chinese ballistic missile submarine that were splashed across monitors around the world, now appear with increasing — and troubling — frequency, he said.

“This is just the world we live in these days,” Hughes said.

Several Navy watchers said the now widespread Ohio-class sub propeller photo marks a first.

“It’s the first time I’ve seen that in open source. In fact, it’s the first time I’ve seen that ever,” said one naval source who asked not to be named due to his involvement with ongoing Navy programs. “You have to think spy satellites from Russia could have taken pictures of it, too, depending on where they are.”

The source said while knowledge of the propeller has been widespread for some time, its appearance and design have not.

Asked about their policy on publishing such imagery, Microsoft officials offered a statement claiming that the company is willing to blur such imagery if asked.

But to the naval expert, that doesn’t mean much.

“Waiting until you are asked will not be a foolproof way to discourage these instances,” he said. “And that creates a situation where a lot more horses will get out of the barn before the doors can be closed.”

Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, says that even if the U.S. government has not protested the new image proliferation, other nations have. In April, India protested Google Earth’s display of its government infrastructure, including “military bases, offices of the prime minister and the president, as well as nuclear facilities,” according to a BBC report.

Dixon said several other countries have been “very unhappy” with the efforts to photograph the world from above.

“I call this the race to the bottom,” she said.

But it’s all aboveboard, according to Google.

Company spokeswoman Megan Quinn said that satellite and aerial imagery is available from several sources and that Google is conscientious about what it releases.

Further, the U.S. government has not tried to interfere under “a policy that favors the public availability of commercial remote imaging data, on the grounds that the benefits to the public vastly outweigh the potential risks,” she wrote in an e-mail. “The government has the power to limit the capturing of satellite images whenever appropriate. Google both supports the federal government’s decision and understands the government’s interest to set limits wherever appropriate.”

How big of a breach?
Norman Friedman, a highly regarded authority and author on naval and military topics, has been to the Bangor submarine base and knows any pictures he could have taken there would have landed him in serious trouble.

He acknowledged the Ohio-class submarine propeller configuration was once very secret, but that it’s no longer the case.

“But I still don’t think the Navy likes people hanging around refit sites for nuclear submarines,” he said. “It will be interesting to see if the Navy has the temerity to go after Microsoft ... I don’t believe the public needs to know that an Ohio-class submarine has a [certain sort of] propeller.”

Some experts argue that even with a picture of a secret propeller, a competitor or enemy still has to build it, and in the case of an Ohio-class design, that’s a daunting technical feat.

In a way, Friedman agrees. He doesn’t believe the propeller issue means that much when compared to the proliferation of detailed photographs of sensitive military installations, from submarine piers to combat bases in Iraq.

“I’d be less interested in the propeller and more about someone who can casually take pictures and figure out how the place is laid out,” he says. “Forget about the propeller. Think about the security arrangements on the base.”

Since most of the rest of the world doesn’t have reconnaissance satellites, such publicly available information provides a previously unavailable tool.

“To make it easy for someone to get into a base like that is obscene. And that is something that can kill people. In huge numbers,” Friedman said. “Right now there are people out there in places like Waziristan who want us dead. They don’t have satellites, but they have wonderful fantasies. Why the hell make it easier for them?”

In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, news reports surfaced of suspicious figures photographing New York landmarks. Later, captured terrorists were found to have similar photos, ostensibly for attack planning.

“If you’re not supposed to take pictures of bridge abutments, why are you supposed to take pictures of this stuff?” Friedman asked. “It goes beyond the question of, ‘Are we serious about terrorism?’ A lot of people, with the Internet, think there are no rules.”

Apparently, there are no rules. Not yet, anyway.

“There is a no-fly zone around Navy installations that applies to aircraft,” according to a Naval Sea Systems Command statement. “However, the Navy can not speculate on the type of platform or equipment [that was] used to take the [submarine propeller] image. Additionally, the Navy cannot control the trajectory or orbit of privately owned satellites.”

The Navy says it was not aware the photos were being taken at the time. It has not asked for photos to be obscured in any way.

“The Navy has no agreements with overhead digital imaging companies that control/limit the content of photographs taken of Navy facilities,” according to the statement.

Air Force Maj. Patrick Ryder, a public affairs officer at the Pentagon, said the Defense Department has never asked that such imagery be obscured or removed.

“It is not DoD’s policy, nor do we have the legal authority, to request or demand the degrading of commercial imagery (aerial or satellite) hosted on Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth,” he said in an e-mail. “DoD is not in the business of censoring information in the public domain.”

[u-5075]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F= ... &C=landwar
Photo Sparks Imagery

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F= ... &C=landwar
Photo Sparks Imagery Debate

By ANDREW SCUTRO, NORFOLK, Va.



Throughout the Cold War, satellite and spy plane imagery of military sites was the sort of valuable, close-hold information that could start or stop a war or spawn a new arms race. Only those with top clearances saw them.
Today, much of that same information is just a computer keystroke away. And you don’t need to be a spy to see it. Global information companies such as Google and Microsoft provide millions of regular folks a bird’s-eye view of everything from U.S. military installations to their very own backyards — sometimes with incredible granular detail. This widespread availability of overhead imagery has raised questions about the security of military personnel, installations and hardware.
With little effort, one can Google a forward operating base in Iraq and map out vehicles, berthing areas and security positions. Multiangled photographs of highly sensitive facilities such as nuclear submarine maintenance stations are also posted.
Last week, the issue gained a higher profile with an Internet photograph of the propeller on an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) in dry dock at the intermediate maintenance facility in Bangor, Wash. A key to the strategic submarine’s ability to deploy and remain invisible, propeller designs have been kept under wraps for years. When out of the water, the propellers are typically draped with tarpaulins.
The image of the sub with its propeller clearly visible appeared on Microsoft’s mapping tool Virtual Earth. It was discovered accidentally by Dan Twohig, a deck officer for the Washington state ferry service who was using the program to examine real estate on the west side of Puget Sound.
“My initial reaction was ‘oops.’ Then I looked around awhile and looked at other things,” he said.
Interestingly, Twohig runs a Web site for mariners, and he posted a link to the images there.
Because of his posting, anyone with an e-mail alert set to the word “navy” received the photograph.
Such accessibility and dissemination has heated up the debate about what’s secret and what’s not in today’s hyperreactive digital age.

‘Just the World We Live In’
Nathan Hughes, a military analyst at Stratfor, a global intelligence company, said it was a major mistake that the sub propeller was exposed at all.
“It’s very sensitive naval technology,” he said. “You always hide that from above.”
He said such equipment was concealed for decades, during and since the Cold War. It remains secret given its key role in keeping missile subs quiet. “This is something that should not be seen from space or an airplane or any other way.”
Such imagery, including recent pictures of a new Chinese ballistic missile submarine splashed across monitors around the world, now appear with increasing — and troubling — frequency.
“This is just the world we live in these days,” Hughes said. Several Navy watchers said the now-widespread Ohio-class sub propeller photo marks a first.
“It’s the first time I’ve seen that in open source,” said one naval source. “In fact, it’s the first time I’ve seen that ever.”
The source said while knowledge of the propeller has been widespread for some time, its appearance and design has not.
Asked about its policy on publishing such imagery, Microsoft offered a statement claiming that the company is willing to blur such imagery if asked.
But to the naval expert, that doesn’t mean much.
“Waiting until you are asked will not be a foolproof way to discourage these instances,” he said. “And that creates a situation where a lot more horses will get out of the barn before the doors can be closed.”
If the U.S. government has not protested the new image proliferation, other nations have, said Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum. In April, India protested Google Earth’s display of its government infrastructure, including “military bases, offices of the prime minister and the president, as well as nuclear facilities,” according to a BBC report.
Dixon said several other countries have been “very unhappy” with the efforts to photograph the world from above.
“I call this the race to the bottom,” she said.
But it’s all aboveboard, said Google spokeswoman Megan Quinn. Satellite and aerial imagery comes from several sources, and Google is conscientious about what it releases.
Further, the U.S. government has not tried to interfere under “a policy that favors the public availability of commercial remote imaging data, on the grounds that the benefits to the public vastly outweigh the potential risks,” she wrote in an e-mail. “The government has the power to limit the capturing of satellite images whenever appropriate. Google both supports the federal government’s decision and understands the government’s interest to set limits wherever appropriate.”

How Big of a Breach?
Naval analyst Norman Friedman acknowledged the Ohio-class submarine propeller configuration was once very secret, but that is no longer the case.
“But I still don’t think the Navy likes people hanging around refit sites for nuclear submarines,” he said. “It will be interesting to see if the Navy has the temerity to go after Microsoft. ... I don’t believe the public needs to know that an Ohio-class submarine has a [certain sort of] propeller.”
Some experts argue that even with a picture of a secret propeller, a competitor or enemy still has to build it, and in the case of an Ohio-class design, that’s a daunting technical feat.
In a way, Friedman agrees. He doesn’t believe the propeller issue means that much when compared with the proliferation of detailed photographs of sensitive military installations, from submarine piers to combat bases in Iraq.
“I’d be less interested in the propeller and more about someone who can casually take pictures and figure out how the place is laid out,” he says. “Forget about the propeller. Think about the security arrangements on the base.”
Since most of the rest of the world — either foreign governments or transnational organizations — don’t have reconnaissance satellites, such publicly available information provides a previously unavailable tool.
“To make it easy for someone to get into a base like that is obscene,” Friedman said. “And that is something that can kill people. In huge numbers. Right now, there are people out there in places like Waziristan who want us dead. They don’t have satellites, but they have wonderful fantasies. Why the hell make it easier for them?
“If you’re not supposed to take pictures of bridge abutments, why are you supposed to take pictures of this stuff?” Friedman asked.
The Navy said it was unaware the photos were being taken, and neither it nor the Pentagon have asked that photos be obscured. •

[tom dougherty]

The image under discussion is

The image under discussion is at:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=ryqjnb4s57d5&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=10352732&encType=1

[gerwalk]

Interesting discussion... funny to see

Interesting discussion... funny to see how long it took them to find it ! The problem is not the satellite images (if you try the up-down view -that is satellite- you will find it blurred) but the aerial views. Try the North, south, eats and west views (IMO one interesting feature different from Google products) for a better sight of the USS Georgia. I think those were taken from an airplane not a satellite.