No violation. The original position of the CG and LM was that there was no 360 degree requirment for the cameras (which is nonsense)
Also LM and others have said my allegations were baseless. Can't have it both ways (Which is why I found the CGs request to have YouTube pull the video very telling. If it is a security violation like they say then why are their blind spots on 8 boats. Very avoidable blind spots)
I do not know how complete and truthful LM was when they told the CG about the issues.
LM's own ethical practices should not have permitted them to make this an option for the CG. We are not talking about grey areas here. I know - that happens all the time. We are talking about grave errors. However - the CG should never have accepted the boats.
LM had an ethical obligation to tell them the problems and risks. I do not believe we did that completely.
Also LM should not back a customer in to a corner like that. Look - I get that there are always issues people disagree over - requirements that have to be negotiated etc. Happens all the time. What we are talking about here is not like the example you gave but more like Morton-Thiokol saying - we gave you bad O-rings the shuttle will blow up - if you want it fixed you are going to have to give us more money and time - when we are already over budget and schedule - and you will be responsible for that. Gov't contractor's own ethical standards should prevent them for making that an option.
Now having said that - the CG should absolutely not have accepted this.
However - I hold the contractor more responsible
I worked directly for LM for over 12 years. This was only one of 3 ethical issues I ran in to during that time. All of which lead to my termination. While that may seem high - it's not. In surveys 1/3 of LM employees (over 30K of them) say they have seen something unethical during their career. Let's say only half are right - that's 15k people who saw something. That's to high. (I am involved in 3 episodes because I make different choices than most - or the average person. it's not because I see more) Having said that let me say 2 things. During the 2 years I spent on Aegis I saw nothing but professionalism. Thousands of people worked that job. (Why was it that way. Leadership - not process - not anything else) I was proud to work that effort. Also - Lockheed isn't the odd man out here. +/- an inch all defense contractors are like this.
if you don't wnat to be exposed stay out of defense work
Exactly what i told them over and over. Come clean - no one else does that - you will be better off a year or so from now. I even offered to go back on the job as Chief Engineer and get it right.
Here's why they don't. So many trusted managers said I was wrong that they simply don't know they are. I think they never really looked at the data.
I am told LM informed the CG and they took the boats. i get your point.
I belive LM had a responsibility to not provide such a poor solution and not put their customer in that psotion. Basically I belive LM said take them or we burn more schedule and money. And you can go tell your superiors you did not take the boats and are responsible for more delays and budget over runs. LM - if it followed it's ethical practices - should never have suggested any of that be accepted. Again - everything was EASILY avoidable. Additionally we would have used less $ and time because we wouldn't have churn over bad decisions.
Thank you. The video was the last thing I wanted to do. Didn't want to live with these things eating away at me.
Background
6 years Navy Comm Tech
1.5 years US State Dept Comm Eng - 8 months Comm Eng for Counter Terrorism group
12 yeas LM - Syst Eng, PM amd Eng Manager. Including SW PM for an Aegis BAseline and SW Eng Manager for LM NORAD projects
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
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.
Cameras - this doesn't affect any system that digitizes or montors them . All we need was one more camera. As for the security aspect - the CG and LM maintain there is no issue. As such I cannot compromise a non-problem. The boast have been this way for almost a year. if there were issues the CG had plenty of time to correct them. Which is better not fixing this and having that secusrity isue or fixing this with the video (the video was alast resort after 3 years - see below)? (Now the CG has to use a watch stander - they are more secure)
FLIR was an example - it might also have been fixed by adding a heater. See we didn't get the environmental requirements until after design review and most of the equip was bought (which is nuts - this is also the time I came on the program ) The FLIR was the first system we looked at. When I told management there was an issue with the FLIR they directed us to stop looking in to the rest. So. ..my worry is that there are more issues (and not just temp)
Cables - EVERY SINGLE cable on each boat that was supposed to be shielded is not. Almost 100 cables on each boat. We actually removed the shielded cable for the old systems we were putting back in. I have a TEMPEST background. I also talked to experts in Lockheed as well as the company that certs Air Force One. All agree that under these conditions it is very improbable that the instrumented test would pass. Also - the IG asked for test data months ago - and hasn't gotten it. They also asked to independently check the boats. The CG won't comply. Don't you think they would if the test actually passed?
As for the way I did this. I spent 3 years - went through 3 LM ethics investigations, coporate legal, the CEO and Board of Directors. I went to the Commandant of the CG, the CO of the boats, the Navy, GAO, NSA etc. Finally the DHS IG agreed to investigate. They have told me all of my claims look to be legitimate. However they can't continue because the CG isn't cooperating. I then went to the Homeland Security Committee and asked them to push the CG - they refused. Meanwhile these boats are operating. Also - all the other gov't orgs who use those classified circuits are at risk.
My advice to some of you - since you are engineers. Don't assume or make judgements until you know what you are talking about. Feel free to email me - imispgh@yahoo.com
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you I am starting a site soon for people to post their whistle blowing videos. It will have sponsordhip from the relvent organizations and attorneys Lastest data DHS IG report Defense News article written after it came out Friday Article Defense News just did http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2075954&C=a merica
Report Data
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_06-55 _Aug06.pdf
Things are looking up Article Defense News just did http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2075954&C=a merica
Report Data
http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/OIG_06-55 _Aug06.pdf
No violation. The original position of the CG and LM was that there was no 360 degree requirment for the cameras (which is nonsense) Also LM and others have said my allegations were baseless. Can't have it both ways (Which is why I found the CGs request to have YouTube pull the video very telling. If it is a security violation like they say then why are their blind spots on 8 boats. Very avoidable blind spots)
I do not know how complete and truthful LM was when they told the CG about the issues. LM's own ethical practices should not have permitted them to make this an option for the CG. We are not talking about grey areas here. I know - that happens all the time. We are talking about grave errors. However - the CG should never have accepted the boats.
Good for you. Good luck to you Consider yourself in a very smal yet elite group
LM had an ethical obligation to tell them the problems and risks. I do not believe we did that completely. Also LM should not back a customer in to a corner like that. Look - I get that there are always issues people disagree over - requirements that have to be negotiated etc. Happens all the time. What we are talking about here is not like the example you gave but more like Morton-Thiokol saying - we gave you bad O-rings the shuttle will blow up - if you want it fixed you are going to have to give us more money and time - when we are already over budget and schedule - and you will be responsible for that. Gov't contractor's own ethical standards should prevent them for making that an option. Now having said that - the CG should absolutely not have accepted this. However - I hold the contractor more responsible
I worked directly for LM for over 12 years. This was only one of 3 ethical issues I ran in to during that time. All of which lead to my termination. While that may seem high - it's not. In surveys 1/3 of LM employees (over 30K of them) say they have seen something unethical during their career. Let's say only half are right - that's 15k people who saw something. That's to high. (I am involved in 3 episodes because I make different choices than most - or the average person. it's not because I see more) Having said that let me say 2 things. During the 2 years I spent on Aegis I saw nothing but professionalism. Thousands of people worked that job. (Why was it that way. Leadership - not process - not anything else) I was proud to work that effort. Also - Lockheed isn't the odd man out here. +/- an inch all defense contractors are like this. if you don't wnat to be exposed stay out of defense work
Exactly what i told them over and over. Come clean - no one else does that - you will be better off a year or so from now. I even offered to go back on the job as Chief Engineer and get it right. Here's why they don't. So many trusted managers said I was wrong that they simply don't know they are. I think they never really looked at the data.
I am told LM informed the CG and they took the boats. i get your point. I belive LM had a responsibility to not provide such a poor solution and not put their customer in that psotion. Basically I belive LM said take them or we burn more schedule and money. And you can go tell your superiors you did not take the boats and are responsible for more delays and budget over runs. LM - if it followed it's ethical practices - should never have suggested any of that be accepted. Again - everything was EASILY avoidable. Additionally we would have used less $ and time because we wouldn't have churn over bad decisions.
Thank you. The video was the last thing I wanted to do. Didn't want to live with these things eating away at me. Background 6 years Navy Comm Tech 1.5 years US State Dept Comm Eng - 8 months Comm Eng for Counter Terrorism group 12 yeas LM - Syst Eng, PM amd Eng Manager. Including SW PM for an Aegis BAseline and SW Eng Manager for LM NORAD projects
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
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.
Cameras - this doesn't affect any system that digitizes or montors them . All we need was one more camera. As for the security aspect - the CG and LM maintain there is no issue. As such I cannot compromise a non-problem. The boast have been this way for almost a year. if there were issues the CG had plenty of time to correct them. Which is better not fixing this and having that secusrity isue or fixing this with the video (the video was alast resort after 3 years - see below)? (Now the CG has to use a watch stander - they are more secure) FLIR was an example - it might also have been fixed by adding a heater. See we didn't get the environmental requirements until after design review and most of the equip was bought (which is nuts - this is also the time I came on the program ) The FLIR was the first system we looked at. When I told management there was an issue with the FLIR they directed us to stop looking in to the rest. So. . .my worry is that there are more issues (and not just temp)
Cables - EVERY SINGLE cable on each boat that was supposed to be shielded is not. Almost 100 cables on each boat. We actually removed the shielded cable for the old systems we were putting back in. I have a TEMPEST background. I also talked to experts in Lockheed as well as the company that certs Air Force One. All agree that under these conditions it is very improbable that the instrumented test would pass. Also - the IG asked for test data months ago - and hasn't gotten it. They also asked to independently check the boats. The CG won't comply. Don't you think they would if the test actually passed?
As for the way I did this. I spent 3 years - went through 3 LM ethics investigations, coporate legal, the CEO and Board of Directors. I went to the Commandant of the CG, the CO of the boats, the Navy, GAO, NSA etc. Finally the DHS IG agreed to investigate. They have told me all of my claims look to be legitimate. However they can't continue because the CG isn't cooperating. I then went to the Homeland Security Committee and asked them to push the CG - they refused. Meanwhile these boats are operating. Also - all the other gov't orgs who use those classified circuits are at risk.
My advice to some of you - since you are engineers. Don't assume or make judgements until you know what you are talking about. Feel free to email me - imispgh@yahoo.com
I am already unemployed