It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
www.icgsdeepwater.com...
"ICGS has a real opportunity to participate in this transformation by equipping Coast Guard men and women with state-of-the-art technology that will provide the Coast Guard with the best advantages available in the interception and engagement of threats to our security away from our own shores,” said Dur. “ICGS pledges continued progress, performance, and our accountability to you who are still on watch."
Like when Halliburton supplied our troops in Iraq with water that was dirtier than the stuff flowing in the nearby river! We could have saved a huge sum of money, and protected the troops to a greater extent, by just having them wash and brush their teeth in the polluted river!
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Interesting development in related news. A provision protecting government whistleblowers on the table in Washington, but the House has not gotten on board and included similar language in their version of the bill. This fellow connected to Lockheed is mentioned in the article, so I thought I'd post it.
Link
What gives?
Usually the House is all over this stuff...
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Astronomer, if that's true, it's a huge relief.
I mean, the removal of shielded cables still bugs me, but if you're telling me the communications are in no real danger of being intercepted by third parties outside the ship, at least that's something.
I'm not worried about men onboard, I'm worried about other nations, and non-governmental groups like drug cartels, picking up and using the information and potentially putting Coast Guard/DEA/Navy employees at unnecessary risk.
If that's not a possibility, then I suppose the seriousness of the issue is lessened.
If I understand you correctly though, it's still a possibility, just not a probability. Do you think it would be wise to eliminate the potential altogether? Seems like a good idea to me...
Also, in my experience, unshielded cables tend to pick up a lot of outside interference, like cell phone conversations and radio broadcasts that weren't desired. If this is true in the case of the Coast Guard vessel, does that present an operational hazard? Or are they too far from the commonly occuring interference to suffer from it?
Anyway, thanks very much for your input.
And thanks to Sofi too, for picking up my slack! Much appreciated - my head has been somewhere else these last few weeks.