5 ms·
the problem with just one is that US will insist having a deadswitch on it, just like it did with Galileo. so you must have your own if you don't want US to ha
by ddalex 7y ago
the problem with just one is that US will insist having a deadswitch on it, just like it did with Galileo.
so you must have your own if you don't want US to have a Damocles sword over you
- vinay427 7y agoNewer GPS satellites apparently don't support selective availability, so they would have no way of preventing access to only civilian devices. Of course, any of these systems can be jammed or shot down but that would affect anyone using it. > In September 2007, the U.S. government announced its decision to procure the future generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS III, without the SA feature. Doing this will make the policy decision of 2000 permanent and eliminate a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that had been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide. https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/ https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/
- dragonelite 7y agoWhy would a reformist country like China and Russia trust such a thing. We were also told that mass surveillance was a conspiracy/nutjob story, but the Snowden leaks has shown us a different world.
- vinay427 7y agoThey wouldn't, and I can see why. I was just adding some information. As far as anyone in the public has been told, both GPS and Galileo will remain open for anyone to use, but depending on that requires trusting whoever runs it.
- Spare_account 7y agoIf I wanted my neighbours to trust my GPS system more, I'd tell them I don't have selective availability.
- vinay427 7y agoSure. If you wanted GPS to be more widely used and depended on with no ulterior motives, you would also tell them you don't have selective availability. All of these systems require trusting the operators at the end of the day, and I'm not making the claim that one should depend on any single system.