U.S. Makes Plans for GPS Shutdown 945
sailforsingapore writes "Apparently, President Bush is drawing up plans to disable sections of the GPS network in the event of a terrorist attack. The rationale seems to be that it would prevent said terrorists from using the GPS system to direct some sort of attack. The plan would shut down access not only to the GPS satellite network, but projects like the EU's Galileo. Ironically, this comes alongside the President's plan to strengthen the GPS network against deliberate jamming."
Existing capability? (Score:5, Interesting)
When Clinton allowed for more accurate GPS signals to be used by civilians, it sure seemed like they just flipped a switch one day and it was suddenly more accurate for everyone...
Whats the point of shutting down the system? (Score:3, Interesting)
GPS Airport Approaches (Score:4, Interesting)
What about the growing number of airports that use GPS-only instrument approaches? Geezsh, why doesn't he just shut down the VOR and NDB systems while he's at it.
Besides, a Determined Terrorist could build their own ground-based DGPS-like system for specific targets without too much difficulty.
What's the point in Galileo if Bush can switch it (Score:2, Interesting)
GPS is free to use (once you've got a handset), and there really is no value in reproducing it except to protect ourselves when our interests do not align with those of Mr Bush or whoever Diebold elects in the future.
Real impact? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm guessing this is some off the wall PR stunt to make people feel better that they can turn of GPS in an instant but the real facts are you can't shut down most of the sats unless they are in range of one of the few control stations and even then it might be a one way trip for some of the older ones.
Turning off GPS might just wipe out a great deal of mobile phones and other communications. It would be bad for aviation as well because one its turned off, there is no reason to ever turn it back on as far as pilots are concerned. And there is that small problem that the Europeans are building Galileo and the Russians still have GLONASS.
After seeing what Airbus is doing to Boeing and all the other military messes, I'm wondering who the politicians are working for because I know its not for the tax payers.
Closing the barn door after the horse is out (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is another significant terrorist attack inside the U.S., don't you think it would be too late for shutting down the GPS network to help anything?
The only way this would be useful would be if the government knew an attack was imminent, and knew the attackers were relying on GPS, and was so sure of their knowledge that they were willing to disrupt air traffic, shipping, traveling salesmen, and everyone trying to find their way to a party. In short, I think the likelihood of this ever being used is low, and the likelihood of it actually helping protect against terrorism is near zero.
I think this capability makes more sense as a bargaining chip to threaten other countries with in trade negotiations. Their commerce depends on the GPS system, too.
"Terrorists" (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorists will not rely on GPS.
The military is increasing its' reliance on GPS.
therefore
Shutting down the GPS will have no negative effect on the terrorists, but will hamper the military (and probably civil emergency efforts too).
Finally, if the terrorists do mount an attack on us that somehow utilises GPS, it is unlikely we will know about it until after it has happened.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Technology Cuts Both Ways (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that the efforts of emergency responders could well be hampered by lack of information, particularly if the information network were shutdown. This includes GPS information. You can never know for certain who will be in a critical position to relay important information. If they don't have it, the system won't be able to respond effetively. (eg, "I just saw a gasoline tanker truck going by at 85 mph down this lonely highway - where am I? I dunno, my GPS isn't working."
A similar characterization could be made of the cell phone network: shutting it down could prevent the kind of remote activated explosives such as the ones used in 3/11 in Madrid, but, at the same time, people needing help or calling the authorities to tell them about a suspicious character fleeing the scene would also be hampered.
There needs to be more thoughtful critical analysis going into security measures and less heavy-handed measures based on fear and knee-jerk reactions.
Disabling Galileo (Score:3, Interesting)
Galileo, OTOH, is not owned by the US, and it strikes me that it's extremely unlikely that the US government will ever get root on the Galileo satellite network. Therefore, disabling Galileo for a particular area would require brute force approaches: physical destruction of the satellites, which would have knock-on political effects that I would hope even Bush would balk at, or else on-the-spot jammers.
Either way, preventing a rogue state like, say, Canada from access to Galileo would require significantly more committment than with GPS: you would actually need to manipulate the real world. It would also take a considerable amount of time.
Re:Incorrect: Understand the way it's shut off (Score:2, Interesting)
And who cares if Joe Blow gets lost so that the terrorst who hijacked a plane can't find DC.
Cutting off their nose to spite their face (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember watching a special on the Discovery Channel (or maybe it was History? doesn't matter) that did an interview with an Air Force guy whose job it was to scout around on the ground, call in airstrikes on a location, and paint the target with a laser so that the planes could take it out with laser guided munitions.
He would take a GPS reading of his current location, then use a laser range finder, an electronic compass, and a bit of math to come up with a lat/long reading for the target, which was usually several kilometres away. This would get the planes in the right spot and once they were there the laser guidance would do the rest.
Problem was, the US issue GPS they gave him was HUGE. We are talking the size of a ham radio here, weighing around five pounds or perhaps more. Nobody in that job uses the issued GPS. Instead they order a civilian GPS and use that instead because they are tiny and weigh as much as a ham sandwich and not as much a ham radio.
I'm sure there are plenty of other military people out there doing the same thing. If they turn off civilian GPS altogether they might just be screwing their own troops.
Mechanik
Re:Incorrect: Understand the way it's shut off (Score:4, Interesting)
But hey, perhaps it's also a "good idea" to stop ambulances from going onto the streets in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. After all, the "terrrsts" might just hijack an ambulance and use it against us! Ph3ar!
Re:Let's form a line (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about being a cynic, but as far as only dealing in absolutes -- he's certainly got the Commander in Chief in his corner.
You dont need GPS to be a terrorist (Score:3, Interesting)
For a "terrorist" attack, you dont realy need to have percision guidance.
IIRC, the Nazi V1 and V2 rockets had piss poor navigational abilities. On a 500 mile flight path, they had accuaracy of about 5miles. Which is compleatly unacceptable if you are trying to take out a tank, or even a very large building. But, since London is more then 5mi accross, they hit something. They were very scary. Londoners were scared, possibly even to the point of being terrified.
While I doubt that you could go down to your local university library and get plans for a V1, I think it is within the reach of just about anyone to build a rocket of V1 capabilities in 2004.
GPS Approach (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Technology Cuts Both Ways (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why is that ironic? (Score:2, Interesting)
I doubt if luck has much to do with it, given who paid for the system in the first place. However...
GPS has always been of dubious reliability when US military action is imminent or currently happening. Over the last couple of years I have seen any number of situations (as a yachtsman) where I have got better fixes with clock and sextant than with GPS.
We tend to forget that the latter was primarily intended as a military tool, and we should expect performance to go down the spout whenever the US military machine gets itchy trousers.
That's why all the fancy outdoor/hiking/camping shops had a hard time selling GPS sets when the US decided to bomb the crap out of Iraq.
Re:Seems like a prudent thing to do. (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you get with GPS that a map doesn't give you? I submit that if terrorists have GPS-guided missiles, it's already too late to take action, and anything else is likely to be eyeball-guided. Don't forget that the average fanatic with a bomb has been promised an incredible afterlife, and all he has to do to qualify is to get the bomb to a place where some of the enemy will die.
How hard would it be to replace the GPS receiver in a missile with something that homed in on a strong radio signal?? It's not at all difficult to build a radio transmitter into a box small enough to toss into a tree near the target, or carry to the target in a backpack...
Re:Makes perfect sense... (Score:4, Interesting)
As I mentioned at the start, the rant wanders offtopic. I was referring to the people arrested ^W "detained" and held at Guantanamo Bay for associating with terrorists ^W^W^W "posessing vital intelligence (that magically isn't stale after 3 years)".
No, we don't have a right to GPS signals, but it's yet another example of Bush's 9/11 madness. Should Bush restrict pens and paper next, since terrorists might use them to write letters to each other? Just because terrorists would be inconvenienced doesn't mean it's a worthwhile tradeoff. In particular, killing GPS in an emergency will make the emergency worse, because civilians and emergency services use GPS to coordinate rescue attempts. Killing GPS is doing the terrorists' work for them.
If you think aviators rely exclusively on GPS, you're nuts. There are other navigation systems in place [addr.com] as a fallback, and killing all those navigational systems along with GPS will result in additional dead civilians (because of mid-air collisions, planes running out of fuel and crashing looking for an airport, etc.) on top of whatever the terrorists do.
Re:Why is that ironic? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to do more sailing. I may have to. I can't imagine the US government abusing sailors to the same extent they have private pilots the last four years. We have numerous Temporary Flight Restrictions all over the country that have been in place since September 11, 2001. Not sure what's so temporary about them. Even worse, every time some government official travels, there is a 30 mile radius No-Fly zone that pops up with no warning. You can check before taking off, and one of these can pop up around you as you're flying, and it's still your fault.
We are all losing our rights at an unbelievable rate, and being a small group with little political power, private pilots are at the tip of the sword. Of course, when there are no private pilots left, they'll eventually work their way down the list and eliminate the rights of sailors too.
Be glad you're not getting all the government you're paying for.
- Will Rogers
Re:Why is that ironic? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I don't see GPS as a "right"
Sorry. I knew that was confusing when I wrote it. I was referring to other things. I did not intend to imply that GPS is a right.
I think we are far safer than we were 3-4 years ago
I disagree. There have been some changes. I think most of the positive changes are in personal attitudes. There is no way that a terrorist is going to take over an airliner now. The pilots won't allow it, and neither will the passengers. Public opinion is (rightfully) such that I'd almost feel sorry for a terrorist who tried. People accepting responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others is a good thing. But the government has spent a lot of money with dubious improvements to real security while major security issues remain. One big example that has shocked me since way before 9/11 is the way air cargo is almost completely uninspected. There are so many ways this is dangerous.
But there is a much bigger reason we're less safe. I think invading and occupying Iraq without legitimate cause (WMD, supporting terrorists, etc.) has led to massive resentment in the Arab world and has provided a recruitment poster for al Qaeda. The US has ignored it's own laws and international treaties by capturing US citizens [chargepadilla.org] and citizens of other countries [cnn.com], declaring them "enemy combatants" and insisting that they have no legal protection, either under the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. Countless examples of graphic prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib [wikipedia.org] and similar Red Cross and Amnesty International reports from Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay add to anti-US sentiments. So do the dead Iraqi civilians [iraqbodycount.com], currently numbering about 16,000 and counting. Then a US soldier is found guilty of the premeditated murder [bbc.co.uk] of an Iraqi teenager. All of this creates hatred for the US, and that is used to enlist terrorists. I'm all for killing terrorists, but this is creating three for every one that's eliminated, and that's moving in the wrong direction.
Many people I've spoken to believe "It's better to fight 'em over there than fight 'em over here." The obvious flaw in that argument is the assumption that there is a constant number of anti-US terrorists. We need to understand that our actions are creating terrorism by drastically increasing anti-US sentiment around the world.
I voted for the person who I believed would do the best job handling my top concern of security
Security was a big issue for most people in the 2004 US election. It all boils down to what each person thought was most likely to provide security. I think it could be best summarized by the choice between "fight harder" or "fight smarter". I wish we had better candidates than those trotted out by the two party system.
I just hope we can put the nastiness of the election behind us
Me too. It was very divisive. I also hope we can regain some international respect [msn.com] in the process. Some people apparently don't think so, but we really do need allies to fight international terrorism.
I'm reminded of Die Hard (Score:3, Interesting)
So now, when the terrorists of the world want to create chaos, and want to make sure that emergency vehicles which rely on GPS for positioning and commuunications cannot respond, they do something to have Homeland Security shut down GPS.
Great work guys!