3 ms·

Everyone is an expert on the Internet, this is some guy's opinion, not a statement of official US government policy. Also makes it sound more dramatic, especia

by yborg 5y ago

Everyone is an expert on the Internet, this is some guy's opinion, not a statement of official US government policy. Also makes it sound more dramatic, especially with the Air Force General "looking impressed" hot take. The fact of the matter is that it would be a bigger problem if a top secret aircraft was sitting outside exposed to the sky in full daylight in the first place, where Gen. Kelly's and presumably everyone else's surveillance satellites could count the rivets on the thing.

Frost1x 5y ago
You know they do have to fly these things for real testing. Only so much can be simulated with computers and wind tunnels. It's not a matter if it's exposed, it's a matter of when and where it's exposed. Security through obscurity is very much still a legitimate thing for a lot of aspects. We're not quite to a point yet where you have continuous ultra high resolution satellite imagery of the ground where you could feasibly record these things and eventually find them. Chances are you just don't have the data unless you know all the places to look. In the not too far off future it might be a bit more difficult. We're getting closer to that point for sure given export controls on AI software used in geospatial imagery analysis: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/06/2019-27649/addition-of-software-specially-designed-to-automate-the-analysis-of-geospatial-imagery-to-the-export https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/06/2019-27... Part of this I suspect is geared at stifling an adversary from utilizing lower resolution imagery data to identify targets of interest to point higher resolution imagery or other sensors and agents at to collect intel.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Well, there's a slight difference between "flying these things for real testing" and being carted around on a flatbed where yahoos with a smartphones are around to take videos and post them. Presumably, if it actually requires some level of security clearance, either it should have been covered for transport, or the yahoos with smartphones should have been cleared of the area to at least reduce the chance of something silly like this. Not a whole lot you can do if you need to fly it and it's going to be in or around public areas, nor much you can do about satellite imagery, but that doesn't mean ignore all opsec.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    It might be a fake or a plant, with the "leaked video" a disinformation tactic.
  - weq 5y ago
    exactly. contractors or not gotta checkin there phones before entering places where anything top secret may be. if this was real heads would roll you would expect.

by yborg 5y ago

Frost1x 5y ago

You know they do have to fly these things for real testing. Only so much can be simulated with computers and wind tunnels. It's not a matter if it's exposed, it's a matter of when and where it's exposed. Security through obscurity is very much still a legitimate thing for a lot of aspects. We're not quite to a point yet where you have continuous ultra high resolution satellite imagery of the ground where you could feasibly record these things and eventually find them. Chances are you just don't have the data unless you know all the places to look. In the not too far off future it might be a bit more difficult. We're getting closer to that point for sure given export controls on AI software used in geospatial imagery analysis: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/06/2019-27649/addition-of-software-specially-designed-to-automate-the-analysis-of-geospatial-imagery-to-the-export https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/06/2019-27... Part of this I suspect is geared at stifling an adversary from utilizing lower resolution imagery data to identify targets of interest to point higher resolution imagery or other sensors and agents at to collect intel.

kbenson 5y ago
Well, there's a slight difference between "flying these things for real testing" and being carted around on a flatbed where yahoos with a smartphones are around to take videos and post them. Presumably, if it actually requires some level of security clearance, either it should have been covered for transport, or the yahoos with smartphones should have been cleared of the area to at least reduce the chance of something silly like this. Not a whole lot you can do if you need to fly it and it's going to be in or around public areas, nor much you can do about satellite imagery, but that doesn't mean ignore all opsec.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  It might be a fake or a plant, with the "leaked video" a disinformation tactic.
- weq 5y ago
  exactly. contractors or not gotta checkin there phones before entering places where anything top secret may be. if this was real heads would roll you would expect.