Michael De Kort was frustrated.
The 41-year-old Lockheed Martin engineer had complained to his bosses. He had told his story to government investigators. He had called congressmen.
But when no one seemed to be stepping up to correct what he saw as critical security flaws in a fleet of refurbished Coast Guard patrol boats, De Kort did just about the only thing left he could think of to get action: He made a video and posted it on YouTube.com.
"What I am going to tell you is going to seem preposterous," De Kort solemnly tells viewers near the outset of the 10-minute clip. Posted three weeks ago, the video describes what De Kort says are blind spots in the ship's security cameras, equipment that malfunctions in cold weather and other problems. "It may be very hard for you to believe that our government and the largest defense contractor in the world [are] capable of such alarming incompetence and can make ethical compromises as glaring as what I am going to describe." In response to De Kort's charges, a Coast Guard spokeswoman said the service has "taken the appropriate level of action." A spokeswoman for the contractors said the allegations were without merit.
I most certainly can't vouch for the quality of De Kort's criticisms; perhaps they are entirely or mostly misguided. But whether or not they're sound, De Kort's use of YouTube as the medium for expressing his views, and the publicity that the charges have therefore gotten, seem quite noteworthy.
De Kort "is unemployed after being laid off by Lockheed Martin days after he posted the video. Lockheed said that the video did not influence the decision to lay off De Kort and that he had had been notified earlier this year that he would be out of a job."
Since I've written vehicle manuals for a living it would not surprise me that "perfection is not given to men." But the above seem insignificant. BTW, all vehicles malfunction in cold weather and all security cameras (like human guards) have blind spots.
(There is also the old saying that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. This is a big problem with whistle blowers in intelligence agencies who often fail to realize that acting on secret intelligence is a political act and usually involves diplomacy--which is a nicer way to say "ugly compromises".)
He finishes by mentioning that he thinks he will probably soon need a lawyer.
* he alleges the specs require equipment mounted on the outside of the ship to withstand temperatures form -40F to 125F. One of his first tasks working on the project was to investigate the range of operating ranges for the the FLIR on the ship. He found it was designed to operate to -5F. He alleges when he informed supervisor, the FLIR -- which doesn't meet spec was retained, and he was instructed to stop investigating the design temperatures for the equipment. Consequently, no one investigated the issue and he suspects many pieces of equipment do not meet spec. (This is quite different from complaining that the equipment is finicky in the cold. The issue is it's supposed to be designed to survive -40, but it's designed to survive -5.)
* He alleges communication equipment usees unshielded cables permitting eavesdroppers to listen to communications with the DOE and other agencies.
* The blindspots in the camera system include the large region leading up to the pilot house.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
But I wonder if the skeptics here — not the agnostics — are too imaginative. Can anyone offer an example of a whistleblower who offered a colorable claim of instutional wrong-doing — but in fact turned out on further investigation to be a liar and fraud?
Look, the guy was hired in the first instance by Lockheed to hold a responsible position. So firing him is an explicit admission that they were wrong in their initial judgment. Why then be so quick to support them and doubt him?
The liars are easy to identify - they are the ones who say things I don't want to believe :).
Sadly, its easy to rationalize away ethical violations when you are getting paid by the offenders. Once the payments stop, however, it becomes a whole lot harder.
Joseph Wilson.
He lost me at the unshielded cabling as security flaw bit. Unless they're making Coast Guard vessels out of paper-mache now.
I would definitely Lockheed for hiring the guy in the first place though, he's an idiot. The video is proof positive.
YouTube is definitely in its ascendancy. The company only started in February 2005 and it's having all sorts of impact, legal, cultural, and political. There's a good chance YouTube has already felled one possible 2008 Presidential candidate. See this link: George Allen YouTube video.
I notice the power of YouTube was discussed on the August 21 edition of Fox News's "Special Report" as well as the August 18 edition of PBS's "The NewsHour." The latter contained Mark Shields's comment:
"this makes campaigns a lot more accountable. What you say in Roanoke is going to be heard in Richmond, and Raleigh, and Richland, Washington. And that's why YouTube.com has become an enormously political institution. Everybody can sign on and go see George Allen and make their own judgment on what kind of a fellow he is." See this link: NewsHour transcript
That comment is one of many noticing how YouTube allows anyone to become, in effect, a broadcaster or journalist. I think it's particularly noteworthy now because YouTube is just the right size that an interesting/topical video can really get traction.
I have several YouTube videos, by the way, available at: Page 1
And at: Page 2
My YouTube profile is at: http://www.youtube.com/LiberalViewer
Ajftoo,
I don't know much about the risk eavesdropping that arises from the use of unshielded cables on electronic communicatoins systems. So, I googled. I foudn this at
Wikipedia:
Reading that article, it would appear that secure communications and computer systems normally use shielding to limit the risks of espionage.
You said a mouthful there. Do you understand what "shielding" is in this context? I don't think you do.
I apologize for being condescending, but people who speak from ignorance really piss me off. More-so when they rely on an unrelated Wiki.
How do you think a ship at sea communicates with other vessels and installations? By trailing a cable behind? No, it emits and receives electromagnetic signals. These signals are infinitely more powerful than anything that could be picked up from a comm cable (even if your receiver was directly contacting the cable.) If I were going to eavesdrop on electronic communications I'd target the freaking high-power transmitter not the low-power cabling (which in this case is located inside the steel hull of a vessel at sea.) That way I'd only have to worry about deciphering the signals and not getting within millimeters of the cables with a device capable of inductively capturing the transmission.
But, let's get back to 'sheilding.' Everything within the steel hull of the ship is, by definition, shielded. That's what I was getting at with the paper-mache caveat.
Thanks for playing. Sorry, no parting gifts.
A sarcastic comment does not confer automatic credibility to the writer. This is particularly true in your case here.
As a matter of fact, the hull of the ship will not act as shielding to protect emissions from an unshielded cable within. It will (or may-is perhaps a better way to put it), act as an antenna to radiate that signal.
The difference between the signals intentionally transmitted from a ship versus unintentional transmissions is that an intentional transmission is ENCRYPTED.
So, while it may be inconvenient for you to admit it, you don't know all, and in fact owe Lucia an apology for your belittling post given that the TEMPEST requirements are still very much in effect for Coast Guard vessels.
You win the solid gold Kewpie doll.
Pure nonsense. Demonstrated by your lack of understanding of TEMPEST, even as described in the linked Wiki. See Faraday, Michael.
I pity the state of science education (well, education period) in this country. This is basic stuff that should have been covered in high school physics.
Are you aware that the coast guard has been pursuing the use of composite materials for ship decks? As in not metal? And to be used in the Deepwater project?
Once again, I don't know how far they have gotten, or whether the unshielded cable was installed on ships with decks made from composite materials. But this is not an issue that can simply be waved away by saying "Faraday cage".
Yes, once again.
I'm sorry, you are just way out of your league here. The ships in question appear to be the WPB-123' Patrol Boat. Follow the link and you will discover what the modernization entails. They are extending the WPB 110' and adding some new systems. It's possible that the new mast (or parts of it) is made from carbon fiber, but that's about it. However, even if the entire ship was constructed from carbon fiber (the composite of choice) it would still have exceptional EMI/RFI shielding characteristics. So, yeah... Faraday Cage; *wave*.
If you're interested in naval vessels made of carbon fiber, check out the Stiletto project. (There's also a moving tribute to Arthur Cebrowski, founding director of OFT.)
Lucia, one of the problems you are having here is that you have decided that there is validity to De Kort's claims and are trying to reinforce your preconception with Googling. This is a recipe for disappointment. Stick to your knitting;-) (I'll freely admit that I know very little about knitting. Just what I pickup from Mom when I have to go over and setup or fix one of her machines.)
1) As to my thoughts on DeKoort: you are incorrect. I have not decided anything about the validity of his claims. I am trying to figure out if there is information to suggest it may be true or false.
2) As to your earlier claim that all one needs to know is "Faraday cage" from highschool, this is untrue. It may surprise you to know that I was aware that both the navy and the coast guard have begun using composites for many ships before I heard De Koorts tape.
Some composites have good eletrical shielding; some do not. Some carbon fiber composites have good electrical shielding properites, others do not. The fiber orientation, fiber length, and fiber volume fraction have an effect on both the strength electrical properties of the composites.
As I said: I do not have any more specific knowledge about the details of the Deep Water project, their ships etc. As it happens, this is a fact which causes me no shame.
3) Yes. I knit. So what?
As to anything else you might volunteer: If you have more specialized knowledge aboug individuals ship, specific materials etc. Wonderful! Feel free to share them. I am sure people are interested in any you may wish to share, particularly if you substantiate it with some supporting detail.
You still don't know what you're talking about. You "pity the state of science education (well, education period) in this country. This is basic stuff that should have been covered in high school physics."
As a matter of fact, I have a series if questions for you. Do you hold an Electrical Engineering degree? Are you within a couple months work of completing an Electrical Engineering Master's degree? Was your area of research weak signal reception? I.E. Some of the techniques that would be used to defeat inadequately TEMPEST protected systems?
Thought not.
"Faraday Cage" does not sufficiently answer the mail. Go talk to mom and learn about knitting.
One, apparantly, is to prevent eavesdropping/espionage.
Another is to prevent disableing of electrical component's by an electromagnetic pulse (such as from a nuclear detonation).
But probably the most pedestrian (and likely reason) is to prevent disruption/interference of other electrical (radio/navigation) systems that are present.
The other articles I saw using "Michael De Kort" as a search term on GoogleNews simply mention that Mr. De Kort broadcast his concerns on Utube.
The concerns have been aired, so presumably we will read more.