KSC Security

A favorite blog pointed me to
http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/vi...s/security.asp, which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:27:18 -0400, in a place far, far away, Kevin
Willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

A favorite blog pointed me to
http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/vi...s/security.asp, which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?

Yes. The difference is that security people are clueless. There's no
way that procedures developed by half-wits who run corporate or
government security outfits, and have to be approved by committees
that meet quarterly can keep up with the technology, given the current
pace of change.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:27:18 -0400, in a place far, far away, Kevin
Willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

A favorite blog pointed me to
http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/vi...s/security.asp, which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?

Yes. The difference is that security people are clueless. There's no
way that procedures developed by half-wits who run corporate or
government security outfits, and have to be approved by committees
that meet quarterly can keep up with the technology, given the current
pace of change.

And what do they mean by "stand alone GPS equipment" anyway? In addition to
GPS phones, you can buy GPS modules for PDA's, which gives the user as much,
or more, capabilities as "stand alone GPS equipment". Just make sure you
peel off the sticker on the thing so they can't see the letters GPS on it.
;-)

And even if the people on the committee know about the technology, they're
not going to write rules that would force them to give up their spiffy new
GPS enabled phones that came with 2 year contracts.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:06:49 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:27:18 -0400, in a place far, far away, Kevin
Willoughby made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

A favorite blog pointed me to
http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/vi...s/security.asp, which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?

Yes. The difference is that security people are clueless. There's no
way that procedures developed by half-wits who run corporate or
government security outfits, and have to be approved by committees
that meet quarterly can keep up with the technology, given the current
pace of change.

And what do they mean by "stand alone GPS equipment" anyway? In addition to
GPS phones, you can buy GPS modules for PDA's, which gives the user as much,
or more, capabilities as "stand alone GPS equipment". Just make sure you
peel off the sticker on the thing so they can't see the letters GPS on it.
;-)

And even if the people on the committee know about the technology, they're
not going to write rules that would force them to give up their spiffy new
GPS enabled phones that came with 2 year contracts.

They have the same problem with ubiquitous cameras in cell phones. I
just recently upgraded my phone to a Treo, and I had to special order
it without the camera to avoid hassles in government/contractor
facilities, and it was the same price as with one.

On Jun 13, 8:27 pm, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:

A favorite blog pointed me tohttp://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/visitKSC/NASAtours/security.asp, which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?

Not I.

But I'd like to know what the fine security folks at KSC fear from
having any sort of unauthorized/terrorist GPS equipment on their
site. Or why they think available resources such as Google Earth,
perhaps supplemented by calibrating it by nearby off-site GPS points,
wouldn't be equivalent?

Yes. The difference is that security people are clueless. There's no
way that procedures developed by half-wits who run corporate or
government security outfits, and have to be approved by committees
that meet quarterly can keep up with the technology, given the current
pace of change.

And what do they mean by "stand alone GPS equipment" anyway? In addition to
GPS phones, you can buy GPS modules for PDA's, which gives the user as much,
or more, capabilities as "stand alone GPS equipment". Just make sure you
peel off the sticker on the thing so they can't see the letters GPS on it.
;-)

And even if the people on the committee know about the technology, they're
not going to write rules that would force them to give up their spiffy new
GPS enabled phones that came with 2 year contracts.

They have the same problem with ubiquitous cameras in cell phones. I
just recently upgraded my phone to a Treo, and I had to special order
it without the camera to avoid hassles in government/contractor
facilities, and it was the same price as with one.


So...the idea is you can't get a fix on any of the 'sensitive'
locations, and therefore find it harder to dive a plane onto it
later????

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 13, 8:27 pm, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:

A favorite blog pointed me
tohttp://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/visitKSC/NASAtours/security.asp,
which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?

Not I.

But I'd like to know what the fine security folks at KSC fear from
having any sort of unauthorized/terrorist GPS equipment on their
site. Or why they think available resources such as Google Earth,
perhaps supplemented by calibrating it by nearby off-site GPS points,
wouldn't be equivalent?

Go to labins.org, dl an ortho quarter quad aerial, get ArcView 3x for dimes,
load the right datum and projection and you can hover your curser and get
they coordinates easily. This info has escaped the security folks,
apparently.

In article . com,
says...
On Jun 13, 8:27 pm, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:
A favorite blog pointed me tohttp://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/visitKSC/NASAtours/security.asp, which
says that "Stand alone GPS equipment is not permitted on property", but
fully functioning cell phones are allowed. Since modern cell phones
often have GPS equipment, can anyone explain the difference?

Not I.

But I'd like to know what the fine security folks at KSC fear from
having any sort of unauthorized/terrorist GPS equipment on their
site. Or why they think available resources such as Google Earth,
perhaps supplemented by calibrating it by nearby off-site GPS points,
wouldn't be equivalent?

My guess is that some GPS units can generate Radio Frequency
Interference that would conflict with some of the systems at KSC.

Long ago, I read about a photographer who created a rather special
purpose camera. A camera designed to take a photograph of a big rocket
in the first few seconds after ignition. The design was constrained by
the fact that NASA didn't want the guy to tap into any of the telemetry,
nor do anything that could generate any kind of RFI. (He eventually
designed a camera that triggered the exposure based on one of the really
loud sounds that happen just before T:0.)

Most radio receivers emit at least some kind of radio signals. Most
modern electronics operate at radio frequencies. (This is why the FAA
requires turning off laptops and iPods in an airplane near the runway.
They haven't bothered to test all possible laptops, much less iPods, for
destructive RFI. Rather than start a testing program that can't certify
a gadget before it is obsolete, they just prohibit the possible
interference from these gadgets.) I expected someone would tell me there
was something similar behind the NASA GPS restrictions.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie