Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Used for Whistleblowing
fightmaster writes "A Lockheed Martin engineer with concerns about the safety and security flaws in a fleet of refurbished Coast Guard patrol boats turned to YouTube in order to publicize concerns he felt were being ignored by his employer and the government. From the article: '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.'"
It took me long enough to find this but here's the actual youtube video.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
Thank You slashdot editors for providing a link to the video in question.
It actually took me three tries to find it, entitled: "Homeland Security - Coast Guard Issues"
May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
That's like so Web2.0! He can even toss together a mashup of the boats' locations and some Google maps and have active video links pop up when you hover your mouse over the tags.
Or he could have just sent an anonymous tip to the press who would have loved to pick up on something like this...
Very interesting. While I don't think all the equipment should be replaced to meet the artic temperature thing, I think that the problem should be noted, and the contractor should have to pay some reimbursement for not meeting all the terms of the contract. Some number of ships should be retrofitted, but it may be a big waste to do it with all of them
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
While his employers probably will administratively punish and / or fire him, because his actions may save my coastie brothers and sisters
in the long run,I tip my hat off to you. Sometimes you gotta grab life by the horns, to do the right thing.
Regards,
MBC1977,
(US Marine, College Student, and Good Guy!)
Regards,
MBC1977,
If you point the finger at someone else, there are three more pointing back at you.
In other words, the standard pointing gesture highlights the intense scrutiny the whistleblower will face.
Spend your silver bullet wisely.
I sincerely hope that follow-on work isn't hard to come by.
If YouTube had existed in time for some space-shuttle engineers, we might not have had two birds transferred to NADA.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I guess when your youboat is going to sink, you need a youtube to keep you afloat.
Seriously, this dude has some balls, if not much sense. Tip for all you would-be whistleblowers: make sure you have the facts, the media, and God (not necessarily) overwhelmingly on your side before you start. Otherwise, you're just screwed. I hope the guy can find another job, or get a book deal. De Kort, thanks for taking one for the team.
In the article it said that he was fired shortly after he posted the video, but he knew before hand that he was going to get canned. I wonder how much of his actions reflect wanting retribution or just having nothing to lose.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
The heritage of the SAME company that have bribed government heads, bureucrats in countries tenfold around the world, including germany, to oust their competitors and sell their f104s. Their FAULTY designs.
The SAME company who caused around 150-200 air service pilots to lose their lives around the world flying their faulty f104s.
The SAME company which recently admitted their wrong doing.
The SAME company, which is at it AGAIN.
Read radical news here
OK, let me summarize what he covers (I didn't finish the last bit of the video, though).
1. Blind spot in watch cameras.
OK, thanks for pointing those out. Now we can board the boats and steal them. Yes, this is an issue, and one that should be fixable, but extra cameras will also affect the systems that digitize and monitor them, as well. Still, this system should be fixed, but it's not a major thing, and now you've just told anybody who's interested (in a bad way) how to take advantage of the flaw. Thanks.
2. FLIR Equipment not rated for -40 deg
My problem with this is, working in automotive systems, we regularly see this requirement, and it's more of a "spec" thing. Most electronics are fine in cold weather... short of devices with moving parts (hard drive, for example). Just because the FLIR is not "rated" at -40 doesn't mean it can't handle such temperatures, only that one or more components (chips, capacitors, resistors, etc...) in the system are not CERTIFIED to operate at the wide range of temperatures. Certification for this requirement is often an expensive process and often, certified and uncertified parts are identical in everything but price (or availability, more often). I think he's a little bit out there on this one.
3. Use of non-shielded cable in "secure" communications systems.
This one is a bit ridiculous, and shows his paranoia. The cables failed "visual" - of course, because they are not shielded. He concludes that because they are not shielded, they MUST have failed the electronic test, and because they officially passed, somebody must have cheated. While Tempest-class (back in my days as a Marine) cables were shielded out the ying-yang, and there was, even back in the 80's some amazing intel gathering stuff out there (pull phone conversations from a telephone wire, 30 feet from the pole, wirelessly, for example)... we are talking about CUTTERS. ON THE SEA. Effectiveness of devices that can isolate and monitor any given cable line over more than 100 feet falls off dramatically, particularly in a signal-rich (i.e. "noisy") environment. I'm guessing the electronic test DID pass, which is why it was allowed to be built with the unshielded cable. Still, why couldn't they have provided proper shielded cable? It's not like a huge price difference, and if availability was an issue here, what about simple external mesh around the cable runs?
Like I said, I see he has concerns, but this is really the wrong way to deal with it, and puts our Coast Guards at much greater jeopardy than the things he's addressing!
"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."
No. Not even close. I think it's quite obvious that they're capable of such alarming incompetence. Consider: Katrina. WMD/Iraq. 9/11. Diebold. No-bid contracts. Overbilling.
There's really not much more that needs to be said.
If the employer AND the government AND the congressman AND apparently no one else will listen to this boob, maybe, just maybe, his issue ain't that important and he should quit bellyaching.
Does this also apply to engineers of electronic voting systems?
It will attract a large public audience as long as it is a viewpoint that the mainstream media supports. Otherwise it will just be another video amongst thousands of others.
When engineers warned that New Orleans levees could not withstand a moderate-strength hurricane and complained to their employees, AND to the state, AND to the federal government AND apparently no one else would listen to these boobs, maybe, just maybe the issue was important and someone should have listened to their bellyaching.
You idiot.
If this had occurred in Great Britain, De Kort would have been a loyal Myrmidon and refrained from causing such a scene. A British company would not have made such a mistake as Lockheed Martin's engineers. Also, the system used in the so-called "United States" is inferior. In Britain, such disloyalty would have caused De Kort's disappearance before he had a chance to release such material.
Britain will use this knowledge when it moves to take back its colonies.
De Kort is correct: his government is incompetent. The solution is obvious: Americans, subject yourselves to superior British rule.
England Prevails
This video was posted 3 weeks ago and only had a 100 odd ratings, even after appearing on slashdot. Meanwhile a regular skanky youtube teen could get thousands within a hours. Even you guys will probably move on to the next story in a few minutes. I think the government is safe.
Did you even watch the video?
Basically the entire project he was working on was a sham. Not only were the systems not designed to specifications but were flawed in such a way as that if they did fail they would do so catastrophically.
Do you even know what FLIR is? It's how they know navigate and identify targets in low-level light conditions or fog (which, I hope I don't have to tell you is very common on coastlines). It's very simple, if the FLIR system fails (and according to him it will at low temperatures), people can die--either from collisions or friendly fire. If what he's saying is true, he should be making a stink.
Furthermore, the security camera issue is huge too. It's one thing to have blind spots. It's quite another to have two symmetrical approach angles that lead right ONTO the ship which can't be seen. Again, a failure due to this design flaw could lead to either the capture or deaths of American servicemen. And it could've been fixed by only adding one more camera.
As far as the non-TEMPEST compliance goes--I don't know. As I understand it, TEMPEST is literally tin-foil hat paranoid, but honestly there's no reason not to use something as simple as shielded cables is that's all that's preventing compliance.
Regardless, this is just another example of how government incompetence combined with corporate greed serves to hurt the American taxpayer and unnecessarily puts the lives of our service-men and women at risk. If you don't think there's a connection between this very believable story and deadly screw-ups like the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq or the Ospreys crashes, you're the boob--not the whistleblower.
-Grym
His DUTY was to INFORM his management, government, congressman, intelligence services, etc. that he had SERIOUS concerns relative to the project he was leading. Anything less is unworthy of the status of Lead Engineer
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
In spite of modern attempt at historical revision, it is clear to honest historians that Britain won all the battles of 1776 and then left a humbled America to govern itself as punishment for disloyalty. Shortly thereafter, the country spiralled into civil war and went further downhill from there: freedom of its slaves, freedom of speech, and that snake in the grass: "democracy".
So far from England, the Green and Pleasant land, America struggles under inferior governance.
Because of their inferior education, Americans have inferior intellects. This corruption began before the country broke away from British governance. The colonists believed their British brothers had added more tax to their their tea when in fact the wise governors in England had enabled the colonists to purchase tea at a lower price than even smugglers could offer. This allowed the colonists, whose economy had suffered due to their grumblings against Britain, to purchase superior British tea without breaking superior British law.
Our superior tools, dentistry, and teas have made Britain the proud ruler of the world it is today. Our enemies crumble at our feet, as emphasized in the way we single-handedly defeated Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti and hanged, drew, and quartered him at Tyburn.
I have heard CNN and Fox News have been lapse in reporting this to Americans. No surprise, they are inferior news corporations. If you had been watching BBC News, you would know this already.
England Prevails
Compaired to who? Last I checked Lockheed makes the best radar systems in the world. Last I checked Lockheed makes the ONLY anti-ballistic missle defense systems in the world, not just land based by sea based.
It was also the company that is bailing out Raytheon on the Zumwalt class destroyers ( DD(X) / DD-21 ). Politics screwed that decision, almost forcing the contract to Raytheon who didn't have the capability to really design the ship. Realizing this Raytheon subcontracted Lockheed to do a lot of the work...
Again, inferior compaired to who? Now I do think that this might have some merit, but if no one cared at the Coast Guard, the people who are ordering the ships, I don't think there is anything more to say. In the end, they are the ones who need to say that it is unacceptible. They are the ones who need to say that we want X% of money back due to not meeting X requirement(s). Once they had been notified by this engineer of the concerns, I don't know what more you can say. Do we know if Lockheed themselves brought this up to the Coast Guard? As the engineer states, he no longer works on the program, and wouldn't be privy to that knowledge. If Lockheed brought the matter up to the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard didn't care, this is all a big nothing in my opinion. Yes, improvements could be made, but we can say that about everything out there. It all comes down to costs to make the improvements. If the Coast Guard would rather have the ships as is now instead of waiting x months for redesign, re-fit, then so be it.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
He said "We found out the FLIR system would not survive temperatures below -5". There is a vast chasm between saying "this FLIR is not rated for -5" and saying "the FLIR would not survive temperatures below -5". I'm not sure on FLIR sensitivity to cold weather, but he is implying it would then break.
Oh another point, all tactical systems that handle classified material and are not in special facilities, e.g. a SCIF, need to be protected against TEMPEST / COMSEC & all that jazz. This is common knowledge for anyone with a SIGINT background in the mil/intel arena.
Obviously a cutter is built for shallow water work. That means near to shores not way out in the Atlantic Ocean. Big Antenna on the shore, camo'd in the trees, picks up classified comms - not unrealistic.
There is no such thing as paranoia when it comes to protecting classified material.
Initially, I was considered as written by an amateur, but then I noticed that part about you being a Marine. Figures!
I think you might want to do a little research into the NSA's TEMPEST security standard. This evolved primarily out of the revelation of Wim van Eck who in 1985 demonstrated that it was possible to duplicate the display of a monitor at a range of several hundred meters, using $15 worth of electronics and a TV set. Unless they've been training people to decrypt (with their eyes and brains) information they read off a monitor, I think it's safe to assume that data displayed on a monitor aboard one of these ships is unencrypted, and potentially containing text messages about current intelligence, commands to the ship, etc. It's not that big of a reach to think with the advancements in DSPs since 1985, that $1500 worth of sniffing equipment could easily extend that several hundred metre range to 5 or 10 miles.
You might also do well to actually watch the video. Only the first batch of retrofitted ships are on regular patrol in the Gulf of Mexico. Eventually all the 123-foot Cutters, including those used in the Arctic and The Persian Gulf will receive the same retrofits.
cat
From the video:
"I will not share my name on this video to avoid harassment to my family".
From the article:
"Michael De Kort was frustrated."
There were going to be 49 of these at the time. Going all over the world. They stopped at 8 because the hulls were so badly rusted that they decided not to continue. Plus boats like this get deployed all of the world when needed. Additionally this is a System of Systems effort. Since this was the first platform it means these designs will be pushed to other assets to keep implementations similiar. They did 8 boats like this on purpose - planning on 49. My guess is they intend to continue to do this for commonality reasons as well as to not get caught (change would draw attention.
What does any of that have to do with any of the issues in question here? Interesting, Maybe. Relevent, no.
The guy's employers disagree with him that there is a problem. Simply because he's a "little guy" doesn't make him right. Apperently, no one else on the project agrees with him. But just because he's going up against the "big bad Lockheed Martin" doesn't make him right. We have no proof at all that anything he says is anything more than opinion.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Or maybe. . .just maybe. LM and the CG realize comming clean would be extremely damaging. the DHS IG has already told me there preliminary look has validated my concerns. $24 billion is at stake - do you think they will come clean after doing this on 8 or more boats without be forced?
By the way - I am the one who did the video
If you dont meet TEMPEST standards, there is a high chance someone can intercept 'unencrypted' information either within the 'encrypted' information or on its own, or simply 'sense' it on a power line to the building. (also look up Van Eck phreaking)
There are a few considerations to help ensure the system will pass a TEMPEST test:
- Proper physical separation of Red and Black.
- Suitable filtering of power supplies.
- Propper shielding (parent got that one)
- Propper termination of shielding into correct EMI Backshells
- Correct assembly and termination of backshells
- More about what I've said Here [PDF]
Basically if you skimp on any of these to save a few dollars (and it aint cheap), the bad guys can intercept your communications (COMINT), which means your likely to get your ass handed to you on a plate...
PS: All of what Ii've said above is unclass and is in the public domain....
BTW,
Tempest was not only a secret Government study, it is also an acronym: Telecommunications Electronics Material Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions.
Cheers...
-- Posted from my parent's basement
Certainly we have no proof, but having worked several years for a prime defense contractor, I'm inclined to believe him just because this sounds exactly like the kind of shenanigans I saw firsthand in that environment. It's all about CYA, and whether a deliverable actually meets the requirements spelled out in the Statement of Work is often secondary to how much shit the CO or COTR will have to endure if it doesn't. Raising a red flag indicating that sub-standard deliverables had been accepted by the contracting agency was generally frowned upon quite intensely, as no one in the front offices of our organization wanted to bite the hand that fed them. I can't imagine that Lockheed would be much different.
The guy has basically destroyed his career and probably ruined himself financially to present this information, so I would think it's something he feels pretty strongly about.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
As prior military who worked on UHF SATCOM (satellite communications systems) for a period of nearly four years as a lead programmer in the Air Force, I would tend to believe rather than disregard these statements. I have worked with forces from US Coast Guard, Navy, Army, Air Force, NATO forces, etc and in real-world scenarios, operational security is often overlooked or even covered up in order for projects to not lose funding or lose face in the eyes of upper management and project supporters high up in the government. It is also overlooked sometimes because of the BS red tape involved to implement the simplest security protocols. I pray that some of these issues have been resolved or that the shortcomings described have been negated by other means, however I doubt it. I wish you good luck in your fight and hope that in the end you are vindicated - if so, I hope you sue LM's ass off for the hell I'm sure you've been through. Thanks for standing up - let us know how we can help.
I am a Program Manager for a large defense contractor. I have no first hand knowledge about the specific program and concerns described in the video. However, I can provide some insight into how and why the Coast Guard and a contractor might ethically and responsibly act in the ways described in the video.
First, most defense contracts of the type described are so called "Cost Plus" contracts. That means that the Government and the contractor share the financial risk of executing the program. The government agrees to reimburse the contractor for whatever the actuals costs of executing the program are plus a pre-negotiated profit. The government retains complete control over the contract, regularly audits the contractor's financial data to establish the actual costs, and reserves the right to modify or cancel the contract at any time.
The DoD also has standard military specifications (mil-specs), and the -40 to +140 deg. temperature range cited in the video sound like a standard mil-spec to me. Now, if you are the government and I tell you the cost of refitting ships with FLIR that operates at -40, you might decide you don't really want that feature and grant a waver on the mil-spec. Why would you do that ? Well, you might know that the ship's engines won't work at that temperature either because the fuel oil will be too viscus. Why go to added expense for one component if another critical component won't work anyway ?
The government is in complete control. When the government insists on over-specifying systems, you get the notorious $1000 hammer. The classic example was a spec that required every component of an aircraft be able to survive 72 instantaneous Gs (a very hard landing). Do you have any idea how expensive coffee pots that can survive that many Gs are ? Guess what, you paid for them. The smarter decision would be to replace a $13 coffee pot after every such "crash". I assure you that the coffee pot is a lot cheaper than the pilot's back surgery.
Similarly, blind spots in camera coverage can be inexpensively corrected, and the Coast Guard may have elected to pay a low cost small business supplier to correct the problem instead of paying a large defense contractor's rates. Again, the government has control over all of these decisions.
Finally, if the cabling passes the TEMPEST tests, then it passes. It is entirely possible that the hull of the ship makes a very effective Faraday cage, and additional shielding on the cables is a wasted expense. Again, the government may actually be saving you money.
I don't know if the accusations have merit or not. I just wanted to point out that everything accused might be true and still be both ethical and down right sensible.
You're assuming a perfect world. In the real world, balanced circuits are not perfectly balanced and components drift and fail. Part of real-world engineering is to think about the consequences of foreseeable events.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
We had a whistleblower where I work a few years back. He claimed some sort of technical problem in one of our products.
The problem was, and I was in a position to know, he was absolutely, completely wrong. But he kept up and kept up like it was a mental illness or something.
So I tend not to automatically side with the so called whistleblowers until I have better info.
I know boobs are for looking at... fondling... sucking... but I never tried listening to one. Or two.
Ignore this signature. By order.
To simplify things further:
- If passing through unshielde cables, internal ship comunications, commands and sensor data can be read from a distance using a proper (directional) antena, a good low noise amp, an analog to digital converter (ADC), a notebook and some software.
This might not be an issue if the patrol boat is facing a couple of guys with AK-47s in a rubber boat, but it can be an issue if facing another nation's navy or a drug baron (both of which having the means and the smarts to take advantage of such a vulnerability).
Tempest attacks are only a "tin-foil crowd" thing when we're talking about non-descript individuals shielding their computer screens against "being read from a distance" even if such individuals are highly unlikely to be under surveilance by an organization with the right means and know-how.
It's way more likelly that the right persons (or should i say the wrong persons) are interested in intercepting internal communications of ships used in war or for security purposes (even if they are hardly aircraft carriers) than in reading the porn and unix commands of a non-descript geek with a little too much paranoia.
Or putting things another way, the higher the value of a target, the more likelly it is that complicated, expensive and/or specialized techniques are used against it.
In my mind, the issue here is not what the product was, or if it was acceptable. Because, this would be fine if it were private Coast Guard dollars paying for the boats. The issue is if tax dollars, gleaned from the hard working citizens, were squandered on a goverment program intended to protect the people, and the people end up not being protected either because of government inefficacy, or corporate greed. That is the real question.
Hahahahahaha, good one.
Your international calls are eavesdropped on by the NSA, an agency specifically not permitted to conduct surveillance on US citizens. Your domestic calls are traffic-analysed for "patterns indicating terrorism". Your ISP, telephone and library records are browsed by law enforcement not only without a warrant, but with punishments for the librarians/engineers/companies responsible if they tip you off.
You're holding hundreds of foreign nationals in legal limbo in a concentration camp, where they're regularly humiliated and tortured with complete administration approval. They're subject to secret trials without legal protection, and "due process" isn't even paid lip-service. The CIA has been caught illegally flying suspects to authoritarian regimes through your allies airports without permission so they can be "properly" tortured without US personnel being directly held responsible.
The PATRIOT act powers, far from only being used to catch terrorists (as promised) have been used to harrass holidaymakers, arrest peaceful demonstrators and deny innocent people flights and passports. In addition, said powers were recently renewed and made permanent, even though they were firmly promised to be "only temporary" when introduced after 9/11.
Your democratic system is hopelessly corrupt - one party controls (and is consolidating its hold) on all three branches of your government, your representatives are either corrupt or powerless in the face of the Whitehouse, judicial oversight of the executive branch has been gutted, your leaders are known to have broken the law multiple times and that's not even counting the constant background noise of corrupt representatives (to be fair, more Republicans than Democrats, but still both) being outed in dodgy financial deals and abuses of power. Your elections would embarrass a south american banana republic, with Diebold and ES&S machines showing all kinds of voting irregularities (when people haven't been erroneously thrown off the voting rolls for daring to have a similar name to a convicted felon), machines so easy to hack a chimpanzee has been videoed doing it and programmers testifying the systems are insecure by design, and that they were paid to produce election-subverting tools for Republican party members.
You've lost the rights to: not be searched without due cause, not permit law enforcement entry into your home without "good reason" to believe a crime is being committed, the right to free speech and the majority of rights ensuring your privacy.
And that's without even touching on the deliberate treason by the current administration outing an undercover CIA operative for political gains, "clamping down on terrorism" by selling off your ports to a middle-eastern company with decidedly dodgy connections, an illegal war in Iraq, thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent foreign nationals dead, an army so unpopular it can't recruit enough people to mintain parity and so financially fucked it can't afford proper equipment for the people they already have.
Plus, y'know, Creationism/ID being taught as "science", the environment, your entire foreign policy making you a pariah in the international scene and all the other fun things that haven't changed a bit since 9/11.
Need I go on?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself