Are These Satellite Images Exposing America's Secrets?

New satellite images posted on Google Maps reveal a secret air base in Nevada, where drones are being tested.

THE GIST
  • Google is making public what was once the sole province of the military and intelligence community.
  • Satellite views on Google Maps allow anyone to search for military bases and zoom in to see airstrips.
yucca lake

Circled above is either a Predator or a Reaper drone, which are tested at this base in Yucca Lake, Nev.
Google Maps

Google may be compromising national security -- all in the name of better mapping technology.
At Google Maps, anyone can search for the names of military bases and zoom in to see airstrips and possibly even top-secret military drones like the RQ-170 Sentinel lost in Iran last week. Aviation website Flight Global has done just that, and claims to have found the secret airstrip at Yucca Lake, Nev., used for testing the
RQ-170.
BLOG: Robot Builds Itself With Foam
The Google Maps site shows satellite images of either a Predator or Reaper drone on the airstrip, although Flight Global says the RQ-170 was tested there as well -- information that’s surely of interest to the Iranian military, said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force colonel.
“Iranians would be most interested in operational bases because that tells them how we fly our surveillance missions,” Leighton told FoxNews.com.
Sure enough, other Nevada military bases at the Tonopah Test Range like the Creech Air Force Base are also viewable at Google Maps. With this information, anyone -- even foreign military -- can look up satellite images to inspect secret U.S. spy planes.
“Google is making public what was once the sole province of the military and intelligence community, making this a brave new world for the intel agencies as well,” he said.
Google did not return FoxNews.com requests for comments.
The largely unknown RQ-170 drone from Lockheed Martin made headlines in recent days when it was lost in western Iran. Experts say the drone is the most advanced model yet with high-definition cameras, sensors that can scan for nuclear armaments, and an advanced stealth shell that hides the plane from detection.
On Thursday, a senior U.S. official exclusively confirmed to Fox News that the crashed drone shown on Iranian state television is indeed a fully intact RQ-170 Sentinel -- amplifying concern about the satellite imagery.
Leighton told FoxNews.com that Google has the right to show these images to the public, but they should decide not to because they comprise military operations.
Most satellite images are delayed and do not show current military research, military sources told FoxNews.com -- though none were willing to go into more detail.
BLOG: Google Maps Indoors at Malls, Airports
Is it legal?
The debate over satellite imagery of top secret bases has raged for some time. Previous satellite images showed a secret military base near Denver and in Pakistan's Balochistan province, where images of the Shamsi Airfield showed Predator drones sitting on a parking ramp, ready for deployment.
Yet, with the bleeding-edge RQ-170 lost in Iran, there are new questions about how these images could aid countries that are hostile to the U.S. -- and now possess military technology.
Leighton said the U.S. military has previously blocked Google employees from capturing images at military bases for the Google Earth program, which requires close-up photography.
Dr. John Michener, chief scientist at security firm Casaba, doesn't see a problem with Google Maps showing spy plane imagery. He says national laws do not apply above the atmosphere, and the mass public now has access to the same satellite images used by governments for decades.
His advice to the U.S. government?
"Get used to it," Michener told FoxNews.com. “You know when the satellites are overhead. You can take countermeasures to hide portable stuff.”
At the same time, Michener says there would be a problem in terms of security if the government decided to filter through "deep-packet inspections," ultimately inserting code onto the Web that blocked access to secret images.
That would drive Google to add encryption to the images -- something Michener says may be inevitable.
comments (10)
Heather Frigiola
In addition to the other points already raised by other users, why does this article focus specifically on the US?  Wouldn't Google show bases belonging to other countries as well?
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 6:51:19 AM
FlagReply
Liked by
Andy Horning
randy
The less secrets we have, the better off we are. Secrets cost more than they are worth.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 5:38:15 AM
FlagReply
Liked by
Andy Horning
Dave Mann
OMG!  The USA has drones?  I always thought those Air Force commercials really were science fiction and that I was born 47 chromosomes!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 4:25:19 AM
FlagReply
Adam Querbach
the answer to the headline is "no."
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 3:15:21 AM
FlagReply
Liked by
Guest
G.R. Henderson
This is where the irresponsibilty of lawmakers in the 1990's comes to light; had, before the FCC bill been signed and passed into legislation, our government actually taken the time to sit down and ratify the U.S. Constitution, so that there were amendments that kept in pace with what would be the technological boom that would follow and thus place any of these instances under the immediate umbrella of the Judiciary Branch-left for the Supreme Court to interpret and set into motion in terms of legal precedent to cover any of the future unforeesable errors that would have occurred; however, because all we really thought about, was the billions, the FCC Bill would bring in, the various ways the civil liberties of the American Citizenry could be violated through the quasi militazrized toys the populace would play with and the fact that the technocracy that would emerge from this would serve as an efficient distraction no one stopped to think of the most simple part of the equation-creating and sustaining a foundation of legality through the Judical Branch. 

Therefore in terms of legality, the answer to the question is: No, this does not violate the National Security of our country, because once it hits the internet it is undeniably "PUBLIC DOMAIN", and because there are no judicial statutes that cover such occurrences the entire line of reasoning is left in the air.

It sucks but it's true, this why the internet must be privatized.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 3:13:55 AM
FlagReply
Rick K
Google Maps, or Google Earth, tells you the imagery date. Why do you have to guess?
And those areas in which there is historical imagery available you can move back in time to see what it was like at a date when imager was taken for the area.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 2:44:40 AM
FlagReply
rubtwostix
Seriously, not only are those images years outdated, What good would it do for another country to know where a "secret" base is?
Trust me, They can't get anywhere near one of these places.

A sat pic of an airplane on a runway is hardly secret intel!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 1:06:35 AM
FlagReply
Alan Slimak
Those images on Google maps are so outdated.  I live in a new house in a new subdivision.  According to Google Maps, it doesn't exist yet.  If I had to make an educated guess as to how old those images are based off of what I can see, they are at least 2-5 years old.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 12:39:44 AM
FlagReply
mwilk
I worked on a project that demolished an old industrial facility, over a  year later the Google Maps images of that location still showed the buildings we had knocked down.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 1:53:15 AM
FlagReply
mwilk
These satellites fly in predictable orbits, so if you really want to keep something away from prying eyes, you put it in the hangar when the satellite is overhead. I recently saw a special about testing the U-2 and Blackbirds at Area 51 and how they would move the birds indoors whenever a Soviet satellite was due overhead.  Also, this works both ways, the satellites fly over the "bad guys" house too, so you may gain as much intelligence as  you lose.  If you are really clever, you can put out decoys to mess with your opponent's heads. Bet the "analysts" at Fox didn't think about that, did they? 
Monday, December 12, 2011, 10:24:53 PM
FlagReply

0 comment: