Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology

Coast Guard to Track Ships Using Buoys 262

Posted by michael from the feeling-safer-already dept.
nomrniceguy writes "The Coast Guard plans to use dozens of buoys off the U.S. coast to extend the reach of a security system that monitors large vessels heading in and out of ports. The buoys are intended to extend the network's reach -- the Guard now receives the automated data only when a vessel is within about 25 miles of a port. The floating transmitters will relay the information from hundreds of miles off shore, from the middle of Lake Superior and off coastlines from Alaska to Maine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coast Guard to Track Ships Using Buoys More

Coast Guard to Track Ships Using Buoys

Comments Filter:
  • What's the point of this? The folks they're afraid of either won't have the proper tracking equipment or they'll tell the Guard they're hauling bananas.
    • Not if the coast guard is using some sort of active detection system like radar. Plus the point is to spot the ships before they get close. This way we have 100 miles to intercept them instead of 25. Bananas or no, we'll know about it sooner.
    • Consider that this telemetry (or the lack of it) will be compared to all sorts of other data: expected traffic, freight schedules, communications from known friendlies... it contributes to larger pattern/abberation detection capacity.

      And, as another poster indicates, radar and other surveilance will be looking, too. And ships seen out at those distances without the transponders will stick out like a sore thumb, and invite immediate (and armed) visits from the Coasties.

    • Shipping is a very attractive target (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @04:39PM (#11234838) Journal
      Shipping (especially "supertankers" is a very attractive target for terrorists. The system is largely designed to protect the ships and their ports of call. It is an expensive proposition to install these bouys but it is far cheaper than what we did to protect shipping before. In WWII we used naval escorts to protect civilian shipping as it approached our ports. In today's money this would be prohibitivly expensive.

      All it takes is a single terrorist with a small plane or a small boat laden with explosives. The USS Cole disaster would be a minor inconvenience in comparison to the economic and environmental disaster caused by a supertanker being blown apart in or near a U.S. port.

      If the attack were cooridinated and a number of US ports were attacked in this manner at the same time, the consiquences to the American economy would be disasterous. It could make the importation of oil grind to a halt for long enough to cause oil prices to sky-rocket and our economy to suffer.

      • If this... if that.... The government certainly has you singing to their tune with the war on terror. Sigh.
        If terrorists were to attack, do you not think they would of done it by now? They'll certainly do it now, now that safeguards are in place. Besides, didn't the US remove the big terrorist powerhouse that was Iraq?
        Attacking a Supertanker would incur the wrath of other nations and private enterprises, why get them involved now, why give the US real allies which makes your life harder. Also if yo
        • If this... if that.... The government certainly has you singing to their tune with the war on terror. Si

          Naa...we don't need better ID on airline passengers. Every hijacking has just resulted in landing somewhere, so we can storm the plane, and shoot or arrest them.
          Naa...we don't need better security inspections on passengers getting on a plane. No one would ever think of putting explosives in his shoes.
          Naa...we don't better security around public buildings. No one would ever think of blowing one of those u


          • You are right, we don't need better ID, not when the evil terrorists adhere to the current ID system without even trying to circumvent it, what you need is better proof checking.
            Inspecting the passengers, yeah, because it'll only be them, not any of the staff, there're angels.
            Security can't stop everything, it only limits the stupid people, not the determined ones.
            • ...what you need is better proof checking.

              And if the INS had been able to crosscheck with the FBI, CIA, and state DMV's, those 19 guys might have been found out earlier.

              Inspecting the passengers, yeah, because it'll only be them, not any of the staff, there're angels.

              Yes, of COURSE they're not checking the staff any closer. They are concentrating only on passengers. Right.

              Security can't stop everything, it only limits the stupid people, not the determined ones

              Exactly right. We have to be lucky every ti


              • What if Bush had read those security warnings a month before 9/11, that might of helped?
                You'd be surprised, this was only proved otherwise when an undercover journalist (in the UK) managed to get a job as a simple cleaner and within a week plant a dummy bomb onboard a plane.
                • And if Clinton had followed up those same security warnings?
                  Why is it always a failing on the part of Bush? It's not like the planning for this started only after Bush got elected. And its not like nothing ever happened before Bush got elected.

                  Can it be done? Sure. Various people have proven that the security system has holes in it. The trick is to make it as hard as possible, without stepping on too many toes. The other trick is defining the number of toes to be stepped on.

      • Worse still is that a ship is large enough to conceal a very primitive (gun-type) nuclear weapon. Imagine what a ship steaming into Texas City or the Port of Houston could do in terms of deaths, and then in terms of economic damage by destroying some of the US's refining capacity if used in that manner.

      • for fucks sake, when will people realize that terrorism is a phenomenon that seeks out weak points in a society, and that there is No safety from it, aside from addressing the cause... i.e. injustice (mixed in with whatever malicious radical banner thats used to rally normal people into irrational violence and sacrifice).

        If we clamp down and do all this 'securing' of the arteries of the global economy, all we do is hamper growth. And that means the terrorists win.. because thats their goal: to impede norm

  • What happens when our enemies... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jaidon ( 843279 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @04:25PM (#11234753)
    ...train flocks of seagulls to crap all over the transmitters?
  • There's still a large window when tracking 25 miles out, almost an hour. Are they doing this so "terrorists" do not "attack" with large boats? Bad waste of money.

  • Why new buoys? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Roland Piquepaille ( 780675 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @04:31PM (#11234790)
    I was under the impression that the US had spent billions of dollars seeding the north atlantic ocean with passive buoys and magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD) as a net to detect and triangulate soviet subs. This is cold war stuff that could perfectly be reused to counter new threats from terrorism, since it's been there and working for decades and, presumably, still in operation. So why deploy new ones?

    • Re:Why new buoys? (Score:5, Informative)

      by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @05:15PM (#11235012)
      The currently installed SOSUS [fas.org] system does indeed track large magnetic and acoustic objects out in the Atlantic an elsewhere. However....this is sometihng different.

      A passing ship will report to the buoy 'This is me'. That ID can be looked up in a database, of where it came from, who owns it, and what it (supposedly) carries. These new buoys extend that ID farther out.

      As far as reusing the SOSUS buoys, a) what makes you think they are not still useful in their original role? and b) they are generally on the ocean floor to track subs. Not really useful for surface ships.

      • Re:Why new buoys? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Yea-but... ( 743927 )
        Not NEW buoys... Read the damn article. The systems in question are being installed on existing buoys. And SOSUS is not buoys, is still used, can and does track anything that puts sound in water (subs, ships, whales, etc.). The buoys in question, for the most part, are not sonar-buoys, but may have hydrophones. The USCG is more concerned with location of the existing buoys (useful for their purposes) and if they are capable of hosting the additional equipment. The buoys are floating platforms (some ver

    • Re:Why new buoys? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Daniel Ellard ( 799842 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @06:01PM (#11235221)
      The SOSUS and other arrays are used to track subs. Those subs are attempting to hide in the trackless depths of the oceans, not approach major ports. It's not generally a good tactic to try to hide in shallow, regularly patrolled waters where there are lots of other vessels...

      So what this new array does is fill in some of the gaps.

    • Re:Why new buoys? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 )
      why deploy new ones?

      Submerged detection equipment can't relay RF transponder codes - which is the whole point of this system. The SOSUS gear, though, is vital in helping the coastal defense folks in correlating the RF signatures and radar returns with expected/presented ship id info.

    • Re:Why new buoys? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kacymartin ( 749145 )
      RTFA: The weather service has agreed to let the Coast Guard add transmitters to about 70 buoys by 2007 They arent deploying NEW buoys they are only adding additional equipment to existing buoys.
  • This is great. I use buoy data all the time as it provides sea surface temperatures/ dewpoint information and is useful in meteorology.
    This information can be found here [noaa.gov]

  • International waters? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @04:42PM (#11234859) Homepage Journal
    Isn't 100 miles out considered 'international waters' ?

    If it is the 100mil mark, that would mean its *none* of their damned business where my boat is..

    Why keep up this slow encroachment in the name of 'security' and just tag everyone/everything and get it over with? This is getting out of hand.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Personally its not anyones business, anywhere, anytime, unless I'm under official investigation. Just idle monitoring is wrong.. ( may be legal, but doesnt make it any less wrong )

        But aside from the monitoring issue, since when do i have to follow the laws of one country when I'm in another?

        The laws of the country I'm visiting wins out. Be them more strict, or loose... Claiming ' I'm from country xyz' wont get you very far..
        • Pick a country that forbids the recreational use and possession of pot, say Singapore. The laws of Singapore still apply to Singaporean citizens even if they choose to toke in Amsterdam. Now, if they fail a drug test at their workplace 30 days later, they cannot plea the fact that they were in Amsterdam at the time.

          There are lots of examples that are less contrived than this.
          • But they can follow local laws while they are in Amsterdam, which was the point i was making.

            So when they get back, they once again fall under Singapore rules...

            In a way you proved my point.. just backwards :)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • If you piloting a freighter, at latitude 38N, longitude 73W, going due west, 100 miles off the US coast, it can be pretty much assumed that you are not going anywhere but NYC or Baltimore. Not Sao Paulo. And as such, identify yourself.

          Think of this as IFF and air traffic control for freighters. Doesn't a country have the right to know the identity of a large ship approaching its coastline?

    • OTOH (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      if you can do what you want in international waters, why can't they?

    • Who extended the marine rights of the US to two hundred miles off-shore for most purposes, including shipping and fishing. It was done in response to other countries who were extending marine boundaries for a variety of reasons.

      Besides, it's not like the Navy doesn't know where you are. It's just that their equipment is better hidden. Oh, and as far as "rights" out on the open ocean go you don't have any, as opposed to the captain of an aircraft carrier, who obviously does...
      • No one is required to report. But if you expect to enter the US territorial waters, ie, a port to unload your cargo, then you have to report. This report includes destination, ship name and registry, cargo, etc, not all of which is known to Navy surveillance planes.

        That's a pretty hard concept to get a pea brain around, especially when it's wrapped in tinfoil.
    • Isn't 100 miles out considered 'international waters' ? Why keep up this slow encroachment in the name of 'security' and just tag everyone/everything and get it over with? This is getting out of hand.

      If you think this 100 mile thing is bad, then you must be against spy satellites too. This slow encroachment you speak of is well underway.

    • Re:International waters? (Score:4, Informative)

      by SEE ( 7681 ) on Sunday January 02, 2005 @02:07AM (#11236868) Homepage
      Territorial waters extends only 12 nautical miles, yes.

      However, there are several other factors under international law.

      First, the Exclusive Economic Zone extends to 200 nautical miles. In this zone, "[t]he coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, [and] take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention."

      Second, international law does not merely permit, but requires countries to repress the slave trade, piracy, narcotics trafficing, and unauthorized broadcasting on the high seas (that is, the portion of the ocean outside of national jurisdiction).

      Third, all ships on the high seas either fly the flag of a soverign nation and are subject to its laws, or are "without nationality" -- and in the latter case, they are subject to boarding by any state's warships at any time, the lack of nationality itself being sufficient reason.

      None of this is new; the first is in the Convention of the Law of the Sea and goes back 25 years, while the international precedents for the second and third date to the ninteenth century and even earlier.

      By the way, note that since piracy is, under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and other international precedents, "any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed . . . against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State", it would be piracy to shoot these buoys even if they were on the high seas instead of in the U.S.'s EEZ. At which point every nation on Earth is obligated to cooperate in your capture.
  • That beyond 11 miles out is international waters, are they allowed to do this? I'm pretty sure it's 11 because that's how the Cruise ship casino's operate, by going into international waters.
    • are they allowed to do this

      Why -wouldn't- they be allowed to do this in international waters? Who's gonna complain?
      • Whoes going to complain when some enterprising young person starts hauling these Bouys in and sells them for parts/scrap/technology? An unmanned item in international waters has no property claim against it, anyone can take ownership of it.
        • (1) The US claims 200 miles as the Economic Exclusion Zone. International Waters off the US Coast begin there. (2) The rules (by the way, there are rules that govern international waters and the High Seas) that govern salvage rights would not apply to a buoy because it is anchored to the sea floor. (3) We're not talking about international waters or something "adrift." (4) The "enterprising young person" that undertakes what you've suggested will have a serious problem dealing with one of these buoys in
          • Bear in mind that during the above thread, we were explicitly discussing bouys in International Waters, you seem to be under the impression otherwise.

            (1) I know, but the EEZ does not extend Internationa Waters limits, it only protects the rights of the nation holding the EEZ to exploitation rights, it does not grant full Territorial Waters rights to the 200mile extent. The US is not alone in claiming this 200mile EEZ.
            (2) and (3) The 1989 International Convention On Salvage excludes international savlage
        • This would be classed by Article 15, Section 1.a of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas [oceanlaw.net] as Piracy on the High Seas. If you were to do this from a US flag ship or a ship bearing the flag of a nation with an extradition treaty with the US then you could find yourself in court facing this charge (one for which stiff penalties exist). There is a good chance, however, that you would be caught by a US vessel. The USCG have some fast ships, and you would by definition be being tracked by their detection syst
          • Article 15 1.a pertains to MANNED vessels, and ILLEGAL acts of violence, agression or theft against said vessels and crew/passengers or property. Let us quote article 15:

            Article 15

            Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

            (1) Any illegal acts of violence, detention or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

            (a) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such

  • Belive it or not this is a good thing! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Psychofreak ( 17440 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @04:57PM (#11234926) Journal
    Starting in 2000 all vessels over 300 tons were required to upgrade to Digital Selective Calling (DSC) radio equipment. This allows for better distress monitoring among other uses. At the same time all new marine VHF radio designs were required to be DSC enabled. There was a grandfather clause that allowed old designs to be produced until yesterday (Dec 31, 2004).

    This means that when you go boating and (god forbid) something happens, very little knowhow is required to start an emergency response You just push a little button on your radio and your GPS coordinates are transmitted to all vessels around you, including the Coast Guard and all vessels over 300 tons.

    You do need to register to obtain an MMSI number [boatus.com] which will request your boat and personal information. This information is to be used in case of a Search and RESCUE which will hopefully not turn into a Search and RECOVERY. (the basic difference is if you need a medic or a coroner)

    Yes there is a system that is similar using Emergency Position Indicating Radiobeacon [boatus.com] or EPIRB [uscg.gov]

    The use of weather monitoring buoys as transmition monitors is a logical step to help coordinate rescue efforts. Yes it is also "Big Brother" watching us. This does not mean that it will restrict the rights of how commerce occurs, and may even expedite trade by making customs less intense. The cargo will already be partially identified, so when the government officials show up they know what to expect.

    As a final note, private not-for-hire vessels are not required to carry ANY electronic OR electrical devices by any government. Yes, running lights are required on most vessels at night, but oil lamps have worked for centuries.

    Just my $.02

    Phil
    • You'd think people piloting vessels over 300 tons would know how start an emergency response. How hard could it be?
      • Good comment, I did make an inaccurate funny!

        All fixed-mount marine VHF radios produced are now DSC enabled. This means that when you want to equip your boat, dingy, log raft, canoe, yacht....Whatever...the radio you purchase will either be an old design (West Marine has a large backstock of Standard Horizon's Eclipse+ [westmarine.com] radio) or DSC enabled. You will still need a GPS unit to feed data to the radio.

        End result is that most individuals involved in boating will have a DSC radio and GPS in the very near futu
    • In addition, for vessels over a certain size, there is a "big red button" that signals the coast guard that the vessel is being taken over by terrorists. My roomate (studying for a Marine Transportation degree and unlimited ton Coast Guard liscense) recommends not messing around with the button as the coast guard has never had a false alarm to date with these.

  • Public Domain Information (Score:3, Interesting)

    by matthew.thompson ( 44814 ) <matt@acERDOStuality.co.uk minus math_god> on Saturday January 01, 2005 @05:00PM (#11234941) Journal
    This information is already in the public domain because of a system known as AIS.

    AIS consists of radio ID transponders which transmit the ID, status and destination of ocean going vessels.

    A Google search will bring up much including sites which display the information graphically live for free.

  • More tracking? (Score:3, Funny)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Saturday January 01, 2005 @05:06PM (#11234965) Homepage Journal
    Oh, Bouy.

    Thank you!
  • As far as I remember everything beyond 3 sea-miles form any landmass are international waters. Everybody can move in international waters as one pleases.
    • International waters start at varying distances, historically they were the range at which a shore battery could potentially hit a ship at sea, so the range of that battery then, usually set at 3 nautical miles. Between 1945 and 1982, various countries declared limits from 3 miles, all the way out to 200 miles.

      The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was agreed in 1982 and set in force in 1994, and that limited full rights to 12 miles, and a further 24 miles for reasons of prevention o
    • Although it's already been shown that you're not accurate, so what? They may move as they wish. We may query them as we wish and use that information when they try to dock (our waters, eh).
  • I thought that the coastline from Alaska to Maine was Canadian teritory, or do they mean going the long way around including South America (which would also be outside the US coast guard jurisdiction.)
  • This is going to make the US safer? How?

    Let's think about this for a second.

    The US imports a lot of goods, in fact a hell of a lot of goods. Most of these goods come in 40ft containers. These contianers can enter the shipping system at a number of points, very rarely are they opened during transit.

    If I was of a certain mind and wanted to detontate my pet nuke how would I get it into position. I would not hijack a ship, to much effort and risk. I would load it into a container and hook up a pocket GP
    • If I was of a certain mind and wanted to detontate my pet nuke how would I get it into position. I would not hijack a ship, to much effort and risk. I would load it into a container and hook up a pocket GPS to the trigger.

      This is something that has concerned me for a while - starting when I was motoring past a port instalation with an enormous stack of COSCO containers during a period when the US and China were rattling sabers a bit.

      In case you're not familiar with it, COSCO is the Chinese Overseas Shipi
  • Not one bit in the article discusses anything about the technical bit. There isn't even a mention of whether or not they would use systems already installed on on all cargo ships above a certain gross tonnage, such as AIS.

    Simply using the buoys to extend the coverage of their AIS network would make a lot of sense, since the transmitters are already installed on all relevant vessels and do contain some form of voyage data. Requiring Vessels to retrofit YAMaritime Surveillance Transponder doesn't make any se

  • Doesn't improve security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by karnat10 ( 607738 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @06:30PM (#11235335)
    Ships without that device won't be allowed in ports, so the first thing terrorists do is to install such a device.

    And no, they won't declare their nuke in the freight papers...

    The same (non-)effect could be achieved practically for free using satellites, so IMHO this is another case of "Look how we spend your tax dollars to improve our security!".

    The paranoia is terrorizing me.

  • Choir Buoys (Score:3, Funny)

    by HermanAB ( 661181 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @09:15PM (#11235867)
    The Vatican announced that rumours of misuse of the buoy database is totally without merit...

Slashdot Top Deals

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Close