Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

Satellite imagery raises security questions

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 people with the highest of security clearances got to see those photos.

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 detail.

This widespread availability of overhead imagery has raised serious questions about the security of military personnel, installations and hardware.

With little effort, one can search Google for a forward operating base in Iraq and map out vehicles, berthing areas and security positions. Multiangled photos of highly sensitive facilities such as nuclear submarine maintenance stations are also there for the asking.

Last week, the issue gained a higher profile with the appearance on the Internet of a photograph of the propeller on a Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine while in dry dock at the intermediate maintenance facility in Bangor, Wash. A key to the strategic submarine’s ability to deploy and remain undetected, propeller designs have been kept under wraps for years — literally. When out of the water, the propellers typically are draped with tarps.

The image of the sub with its prop clearly visible appeared on Microsoft’s mapping tool, Virtual Earth. It was discovered accidentally by Dan Twohig, a deck officer on the Washington state ferry service who was using the program to examine real estate on the west side of Puget Sound.

While looking for a new home, Twohig stumbled on the exposed submarine and the surrounding facility. He was shocked.

“My initial reaction was ‘oops’. Then I looked around a while and looked at other things,” he said.

Interestingly, Twohig runs a Web site for mariners and he posted a link to the Microsoft images there.

“My intention of bringing the prop photos to the attention of my readers was in no way malicious,” he said. “I did want to point out the apparent lack of accountability for this type of information being out there for the average Joe to find if he is looking for it.”

Sometimes, the average Joe doesn’t even have to look.

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 hyper-reactive digital age.

‘Just the world we live in’

Nathan Hughes — a military analyst at Stratfor, a global intelligence company — says 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 noted that such equipment has been concealed for decades, during and since the Cold War. Just because the Soviet Union collapsed doesn’t mean it’s no longer secret information, he contends.

“The SSBN, especially, with its acoustic signature, [tries] 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.”

Discuss:

The issues and ramifications of satellite imagery on the Web