About 3 years ago, a former russian submarine commander accused of a missile attack in Ukraine that killed 23 civilians, was shot and killed, apparently after his route was tracked via Strava<p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/11/europe/russian-submarine-commander-killed-krasnador-intl" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/11/europe/russian-submarine-...</a><p><a href="https://gijn.org/stories/investigations-using-strava-fitness-app/" rel="nofollow">https://gijn.org/stories/investigations-using-strava-fitness...</a>
This provides a great cover for intelligence agencies to avoid disclosing their actual data source. Just point to Strava and hand-wave a little. Nobody will suspect that you actually had an in via a close associate of the target.
It’s called parallel construction in many related circles and is used on a daily basis even in communities like yours.<p>For example, do you have information obtained from illegal surveillance technology to know of an illegal activity happening in a house? Well, why not just ask very forcefully of someone facing inflated jail time, whether they happen to remember… after thinking really hard about it… having seen that illegal activity in that particular house they definitely have been in, to get the warrant approved by a judge.
Crazy to die because you used a jogging app. Really goes to show the value of privacy. And, you know, not committing war crimes that would make people want to hunt you down and kill you. Either or.
> not committing war crimes that would make people want to hunt you down and kill you<p>People may want to kill you for different reasons though. No need to commit any crimes.
I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it is justifiable to murder them in the street years into their retirement"<p>how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?<p>by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...
No, personal responsibility for war crimes with double digit casualties is not the same as just being in the same military force in any capacity.<p>Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably <i>shouldn't</i> serve in its military.
You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people.<p>I said nothing about whether it was <i>justified</i>, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.
> how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?<p>News reports from both Russia and Ukraine stated he was the commander of K-148 Krasnodar, a submarine that at the time of his command engaged in missile attacks on Ukrainian cities.<p>From a BBC article:<p>> Ukrainian media has said he could have been in command of the vessel when it carried out a missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia in July 2022, which killed 28 people, including three children.<p>Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.
Who do you see as the “legitimate military target” in America due to America’s war of aggression on Iran? You imply it would be any military officer, anywhere, at any time, retired or not.
> Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.<p>Former
This is a common problem across militaries. It is difficult to stop soldiers from leaking their location if they have access to mobile phones and the Internet. Individual cases are usually a combination of naïveté, ignorance, and an unwillingness to be inconvenienced.<p>It still happens in Ukraine, where immediate risk to life and limb is much more severe than this case.
About 15 years ago, our brigade conducted a training exercise to test overall readiness. The opposing force (OPFOR) figured out how to triangulate the brigade headquarters' position using Tinder.<p>Tinder provided 1-mile granularity, so OPFOR would roam around until they had enough points to locate the headquarters. Then, they'd artillery it out of existence. The brigade commander was most displeased—moving a brigade headquarters is not for the weak or fainthearted.
There was fitness tracker that posted locations without user names.<p>Well, wouldn't you know, in Iraq there were all these square paths on the map. Yes, it was Americans jogging just inside the perimeter of small bases.<p>Just like with the aircraft carrier, these bases were not secret but it shows how locations can leak unexpectedly.
It was FitBit and they got banned all over govt services because of it.<p><a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/06/devices-and-apps-that-rely-on-geolocation-restricted-for-deployed-troops/" rel="nofollow">https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/06/...</a>
It was also Strava, and it showed "popular running routes"<p>Example post <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/7tnzxy/stravas_heatmap_shows_clandestine_bases_because/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/7tnzxy/stravas_hea...</a>
The CdG incident is a little more serious given that about 90% of attacking a ship is figuring out where it is. Land bases don't move around and tend to be known already.
TBF a carrier group cannot be hidden from near-peer adversaries. I remember seeing a project that used CV with open data sat providers that could find smaller boats than that. (iirc they used a wake classifier, as that was the most obvious tell, even if the boat was small enough to not have enough pixels for identification).
Quick note that at least since WW2 there has been a technique where you know that the enemy is recording the location of something. So you add an offset to the signal they receive. Then they know where the thing is, but actually they do not. This was done with V2 missiles where the navigation system had a tendency to drift slightly one way (forget if it was north or south). British reported V2 strikes as occurring where Germany would expect them to occur if that navigation drift hadn't happened. Result Germans never fixed their navigation system.
There was one in Antarctica too.
To be fair, I would assume that the base, or in this case the carrier, is the only place where they would have the reception to broadcast their location, right? You probably don’t have cell service while out and about planting weapons on massacred civilians.
Typically you'd record your run with GPS, no need for cell service, sync it to your devices occasionally and that's when it might be uploaded, or later.
Ships often have welfare networks, basically vanilla internet access for people to use to keep in touch with their families etc while deployed.
Different military but if those at the top of the chain of command can't even help themselves when it comes to secure communications (Signal app, cough) it's hard to blame soldiers.
Even if you could fix egregious cases like directly sharing location, I'm pretty sure any access to the internet could be compromised via clever use of data brokers.
One would think on a military ship they could just jam civilian cell phone frequencies and not have to worry about individual behavior.
Seems like the on ships and remote locations, IT could pihole Strava, Tinder, etc.
I agree with Ukraine, but only when it comes to the first two or so years of the war, by now most of those that didn’t respect those rules (I’m talking both sides) are either dead or missing some limbs. With that told, just recently the Russian MOD has started applying heavy penalties to its soldiers close to the frontlines who were still using Telegram and/or the Ukrainian mobile network (?!), so it looks like there are still some behaviors left to correct.
It's also a morale issue. It's easier to get people to huddle in a cold and damp hole if they can play video games and watch anime.
In my day, playing video games and watching anime didn't imply a network connection.
Normies used to deal in binders full of pirated music and movies. Then for a time they got into portable hard drives, but gradually this culture of media ownership was lost to the streaming services. Now your average normie doesn't know what a file is, wouldn't know where to put or what to do with a media file and only thinks of "apps".
Boy, do I have news for you!<p>But joking apart, almost everything is connected and calling home these days...
LAN parties were popular in the late 90s
It's not a "cold, damp hole", it's called my basement, and there's also Dr. Pepper.
anime?
TG ist another case. This is more a crackdown on the uncensored internet. My guess Ukrainians are also using TG without problems.
Another interesting development is the ridiculous amount of background bluring in photos. Turns out you can find surprisingly large number of garages, warehouses, treelines, etc based on a single photo.
The Russians are having problems with Telegram because their own military comms don't work.<p>Russian units have requested fire support via telegram.
COTS smartphones should be banned in all schools and military forces/buildings, for a million different reasons. Probably hospitals (for staff) too.
It's this kind of incident that gives me faith that the military isn't hiding aliens and in fact pretty much any grand conspiracy that requires secrecy across a large group of people for long periods of time can pretty much be dismissed immediately.<p>One of my favorite examples are the soldiers who leaked classified information to win arguments on online forums [1]. Similar incidents have occurred with a Minecraft Discord [2].<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65354513" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65354513</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.ign.com/articles/how-classified-pentagon-documents-spread-through-a-minecraft-discord-server" rel="nofollow">https://www.ign.com/articles/how-classified-pentagon-documen...</a>
To add to your point, the War Thunder leaks aren't isolated to one or two incidents; they keep happening! IIRC, every UN security council member has had classified military documents leaked multiple times. Regarding aliens, there's just no way that an E-4 wouldn't have posted dozens of pictures to prove that 'The Grays' are actually more of a purple color.
What are some instances of a large group of people hiding something for long periods of time and then getting found out? Snowden? Epstein? Are these cases the bulk of the conspiracies or is it the tip of the iceberg? I'd like to think it's the latter, for purely egocentric reasons: conspiracies stimulate my imagination like almost nothing else: keep them coming, please.
Snowden was a good one. A similar leak was a big deal when I was a kid<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON</a><p>Established in the 60s so it was kept pretty secret for a long period of time.<p>It's interesting to think that the government has been using technology to watch us for awhile but now thanks to ubiquitous networks, cheap internet, phone and apps like tinder and strava and a bit of ingenuity, we can watch back. :)
Are you familiar with the latest news regarding Havana syndrome?
one more reason for open, adaptible, and secure mobile operating systems.
[dead]
[dead]
Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret? Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.
Now imagine that adversaries maintain and monitor profiles on known military personnel with leaky online accounts such as these, supplemented with intelligence about their rank, unit, specializations, and so forth - correlating all of these pings together with known and unknown vessels, and across land. They can learn a lot more than "a big ship is there", without even necessarily having access to recent satellite imagery or other hardware.
I would have thought so too but Naval Gazing has a short series [0] on why it's not as dire as one might think. An aircraft carrier's location being "secret" in this case is just one layer of the survivability onion [1] anyhow. (Caveat that as someone who takes a casual interest in this, I can't vouch for accurate this is at all.)<p>[0] <a href="https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1" rel="nofollow">https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.goonhammer.com/star-wars-armada-naval-academy-warship-survival/" rel="nofollow">https://www.goonhammer.com/star-wars-armada-naval-academy-wa...</a>
It is important to note the Naval Gazing article is specifically talking about the difficulties of actually targeting a ship for a successful kill rather than just tracking it. It's in response to the idea that satellites plus missiles would mean carriers could be instantly destroyed in a first round of hostilities with a sufficiently prepared opponent. Tracking is a lot easier to do than getting data fresh and precise enough to hit the ship with no other tools (eg ships already nearby that can get a live precise track vs terminal detection and guidance on the missile itself).<p>Also the capabilities of commercial and government geospatial systems has only continued to improve in the ~decade since the article was written.
It also seems worth considering that the article's view that "spending a lot of time searching for the carrier is a good way to get killed by defending fighters" is a distinctly pre-drone-ubiquity assumption.<p>Can a carrier group's point defense weapons and fighters reliably counter a swarm of hundreds of cheap drones, flying lower than cloud cover, that are programmed to look for carriers over a wide area, confirm their shape optically, paint them for missiles, and take the disconnection/destruction of any one of them as an indication of possible activity and automated retasking? It's a scary world to be a slow-moving vehicle, these days.
> Can a carrier group's point defense weapons and fighters reliably counter a swarm of hundreds of cheap drone<p>Hundreds of cheap drones would have negligible impact on a modern warship's integrity. An aircraft carrier is designed to have an actual airplane crash into it and continue operating. These boats still have armor. It's not purely an information war.
That's why standard carrier doctrine is to stand off from shore, out of range of cheap missiles and drones. To strike a carrier, an adversary would need large, expensive missiles or drones plus an effective detection and targeting system.
How cheap do you think a drone which can cover a large area of ocean actually is?<p>And not just search it - you have to get it to the sector as well.
Less than $20 million each - assuming build capacity and plans ...<p><i>High-Altitude Pseudo-Satellites Are Ready for Launch</i> (2023)<p><pre><code> Editor's note: [ ... ] Airbus contacted Proceedings to note that the 2016 pricing estimates were correct at the time but that the company will be releasing new, lower estimates soon.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/february/high-altitude-pseudo-satellites-are-ready-launch" rel="nofollow">https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/february/hig...</a><p><i>Zephyr – down but definitely not out</i> (2022)<p><pre><code> After an astounding 64 days aloft and a travelling a total more than 30,000nm, a British-built solar-powered UAV crashed just hours before it was due to break the ultimate world endurance record.
The aircraft was the British-built solar-powered Airbus Zephyr UAV – one of a new breed of HAPS (high altitude, pseudo-satellites) – a new category of UAVs that are aiming for zero-emission, ultra-long- endurance flight as a kind of terrestrial satellite – able to loiter in the stratosphere for weeks or months at a time to monitor borders, watch shipping, relay communications or conduct atmospheric science.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://www.aerosociety.com/news/zephyr-down-but-definitely-not-out/" rel="nofollow">https://www.aerosociety.com/news/zephyr-down-but-definitely-...</a>
Fixed wing? Using Starlink perhaps? $10k or so, maybe less.<p>Taking out a billion dollar asset with a couple million dollars worth of drones and a few (more expensive) anti ship missles? Priceless.
A Ukrainian high speed Shahed interceptor costs that much and has a very short range.<p>You're off by at least an order of magnitude. The camera mount you'd have to put on such a drone would cost about that much, probably more.<p>You're also vastly underestimating just how big the ocean actually is.<p>And finding the aircraft carrier is not the penultimate step to destroying it (a "few" anti shipping missiles aren't getting through those defenses).
interceptors are much shorter range than attack/scouting drones because they need to go a lot faster and be more manuverable than the target they are intercepting. Cameras are cheap and really light compared to ordinance, and ziplime was able to make a fleet of fairly cheap drones with 200 mile range (as a private company a decade ago). Cheap drones definitely can maintain targeting of a carrier within a couple hundred miles of the coast (and if you can get to 5-600 miles you keep most carrier based aircraft out of range of your shores)
Not hidden from nation states with access to real-time satellite imagery, but more rustic guerilla operations usually don't have such sophisticated access
Well everything's impossible, until its not.
Oh I get it, the onion is made of Swiss cheese.
It's pretty hard to hide it from <i>anything</i>. Its surface is ~17000 m² (a tennis court is ~260 m²), and is 75 m high (~ 25 floors building - probably half of it under water, but still). And that's a mid-sized carrier according to Wikipedia.<p>It's not built for hiding at all, that's what submarines are for (and that's where our nukes are).
An intelligence satellite - which is not a super common utility nations have - will locate where the aircraft _was_ X hours ago, or at least <i>many</i> minutes ago.
A constantly updated missile with a rather simple GPS tracker would benefit A LOT from a live location of its target.
The number of adversaries who can track a vessel at sea live via satellite is much smaller than the number who can scrape Strava.
I'd guess it also risks exposing a specific account as a crew member, making them trackable back on shore; particularly if you're uploading the same routes
I would expect that most nations are performing some kind of surveillance like this.<p>Finding people who serve on carriers shouldn't be difficult. That kind of information can be plastered anywhere over FB or similar. Many of their friends will also be active in similar roles.<p>Then find associated Strava accounts. Find more friends that way.<p>The information you can gather is useful on many fronts. Someone does a few runs a week on shore and then suddenly stops? Could be injury, could be that carrier has sailed. Have many of their "friends" who also serve there also stopped logging things on dry land? Do any of them accidentally log a run out in the open ocean? This kind of patchy unreliable information is the mainstay for old-school style espionage.<p>Strava Labs beta "Flybys" site used to be a great source for stalkers. You could upload a GPS track (which can easily be faked in terms of both location and timestamps) and see who was running/riding/etc nearby around that same time. The outcry was enough that it was switched to being opt-in (in 2020 I think) but for a while all of the data was laid bare for people to trawl and misuse.
Satellite images are not always real time. Also satellites can be affected by things like cloud cover.
For tracking of military ships it's much better to use radar imaging satellites (e.g. see [0]). They can cover a larger area, see ships really well, and almost not affected by weather.<p>I will not be surprised if China has a constellation of such satellites to track US carriers and it's why Pentagon keeps them relatively far from Iran, since it's likely that China confidentially shares targeting information with them.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-1/Sentinel-1D_delivers_first_images_from_Antarctica_to_Bremen" rel="nofollow">https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Coperni...</a>
China has Huanjing [0], which is officially for "environmental monitoring", but almost certainly has enough resolution to track large ships (at least the later versions, apparently the early versions had poor resolution)<p>And even if they didn't, Russia have Kondor, [1] which is explicitly military, and we know they have been sharing data with Iran.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huanjing_(satellite)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huanjing_(satellite)</a>
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondor_(satellite)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondor_(satellite)</a>
Strava tracks can also be spoofed and you have no
guarantee for them to appear on a schedule either.
I just find this to be on the sensationalist side of "data" journalism lacking any sort of contextualization or threat level assessment.
Unless there was evidence of some more sensitive locations that have not been published along this story, it looks like some serious unserious case of journalism to me.
Clouds only affect a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Plenty of satellite constellations use synthetic aperture radar, for example, which can see ships regardless of cloud cover. There are gaps in revisit rates, especially over the ocean, but even that has come way down.
Le Monde making use of what's actually available to them in real time—is the story here.
It’s like trying to find someone you see in a street view image from a maps provider. The data will always be at least an hour old and that’s a hundred times as long as it takes for the person to be impossibly labor-intensive to find. Carriers are easier to find once you’re on the ocean in close proximity than someone in a city is, but then so are you — and the carrier has armed warplanes whose job is to prevent you from being within observational distance of the carrier in realtime.<p>It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work. Do they drop a buoy with a giant inflating stop sign on it? Fly Tholian-webs perpendicular to the sailing path?
> It’s like trying to find someone you see in a street view image from a maps provider.<p>Are we talking about Strava, or satellites? It's not obvious to me that exercise data is any more real time or easy to find than satellite tracking.<p>> It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work.<p>Shots across the bows are a pretty universal signal.
>It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work<p>We saw how from the Houthis and US military: You send a helicopter with a few dudes with guns. Marine vessels are unarmed, including the people on board. They can't fight off or run from the helicopter.<p>If for whatever reason that's not an option, you shoot it with the 5inch gun on a destroyer. Maybe a warning shot across the bow first. Maybe you literally ram it with the destroyer if you are feeling weird, as China and Venezuela have done. Awkwardly, when Venezuela did that, they rammed a vessel that just so happens to be reinforced for ice breaking, so the warship was damaged and the cruise ship was not really.
That is kind of an amazing point. I looked it up and this transcript was enlightening!<p><a href="https://www.badassoftheweek.com/stanislav-petrov-and-the-rcsg-resolute" rel="nofollow">https://www.badassoftheweek.com/stanislav-petrov-and-the-rcs...</a><p>> <i>Don't ram the ship that has two bars and a Jacuzzi on board and is designed for, like, smashing glaciers. Mm hmm. Then the captain of the Resolute radioed to the guys in the water like, 'Hey, do you want some help?'</i><p>Heh.
I'm pretty sure if you don't have a working radio in int'l waters you'd be assumed to be a pirate vessel and promptly boarded/shot at yes.
No need to make it easier though
At the very least it lowered the barriers for agents without satellite or maritime intelligence. Another piece of information extracted from the Strava episode is that the carrier is not going through a GPS-jammed location, or jamming it itself.
If I had to guess, which I do, I'd say that it's not a big deal that an adversary capable of threatening an aircraft carrier knows where it generally is. What is a big deal is knowing precisely where it is when an undetected projectile needs pinpoint accuracy moments before blowing a big hole in it.
True, but think about the reverse: being able to flag a strava user as being part of the french navy can be valuable too
This boils down to a security via obscurity argument. Is obscurity a useful tool? Often, yes. Should you depend on it? Definitely not. Is it annoying to lose? Yes.
Many of the threats to a carrier aren’t nation states with a constellation of satellites.
You can buy satellite imaging.<p>Operationally, navies with carriers assume that opponents know where they are.
Everyone who's a threat to the carrier can get that from an ally.<p>You can damage or sink an ordinary ship with a bombing, like what happened to the USS Cole, but a carrier will have a fleet escorting them.
> Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.<p>At one time I guessed that too, but I've heard navy people explain that it's actually pretty effective. Imagine saying 'pretty hard to hide in North America from a satellite' - it's actually not hard because the area is so large; there aren't live images of the entire area and someone needs to examine them. Oceans are an order of magnitude larger.<p>A significant element of security for naval ships is hiding in the ocean. US aircraft carrier planes have a ~500 mi effective radius without refueling; even if you see a plane, all you know is that the ship might be in a ~3,142 square mile area. And remember that to target them, you need a precise target and the ships tend to be moving.<p>With ML image recognition at least some of that security is lost. Also, the Mediterranean is smaller than the oceans, but the precision issue applies. And we might guess that countries keep critical areas under constant surveillance - e.g., I doubt anything sails near the Taiwan Strait without many countries having a live picture.
>US aircraft carrier planes have a ~500 mi effective radius without refueling; even if you see a plane, all you know is that the ship might be in a ~3,142 square mile area.<p>pi*(500 miles)^2 = 785,400 sq. miles.
Of course I meant, 'within a circle of 3,142 mi circumference'. But no I didn't - how embarassing. I leapt at thinking '1,000 x pi is the operating area of an aircraft carrier - so perfect.'. 785,400 sq miles is more impressive and harder to find.<p>That explains the downvotes!
>> Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.<p>Clouds. (Radar sats can see through clouds but can also be jammed.)<p>But even on a clear day, most of the people looking to target a carrier these days (Iran/hamas etc) don't have their own satellites. But a real-time GPS position accurate to few meters? That could be tactically useful to anyone with a drone.<p>An active fitness tracker might also give away the ship's readiness state, under the assumption that people aren't going to be doing much jogging while at battle stations.
>Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret?<p>Precise location, yes. At least in the US Navy this is an important part of the carrier's protection. (Having destroyers between the carrier and potential threats is another.)
Sometimes there are things that you don't want publicly known even if they're not strictly secret.
Many countries do not have ready access to satellite imagery, much less realtime satellite imagery. Iran, for example.
Anyone with a big enough checkbook can rent 12 50 centimeter resolution overflights a day from Planet Labs. Their 1.3m resolution is maybe enough to track it in decently cooperative weather given enough compute spend.<p><a href="https://www.planet.com/pulse/12x-rapid-revisit-announcement/" rel="nofollow">https://www.planet.com/pulse/12x-rapid-revisit-announcement/</a>
Iran is being fed intelligence by Russia, so they definitely have that info.
IIRC USA had similar issues with soldiers using Strava exposing secret bases[0]. I wonder wat kind of connectivity they had, was it Satellite internet for the carrier or did it sync once they got close to the shore? For the first one maybe they should switch to whitelist and not whitelist Strava.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracking-app-gives-away-location-of-secret-us-army-bases" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...</a>
I'm surprised this has been on front page of HN all day. As others said, its a surface boat, you could just follow it with a plane, ship, or submarine. If someone knows where it is, everyone does. Would be more concerning if it was a submarine that was able to be tracked.
I don't understand, why is it hard to track or find such a large ship?
This is always Strava isn’t it? Was it Finnish security services that leaked the exacti location of the president because some of them wanted to share their runs? Why don’t militaries and security services just ban it?
Cruising speed of Charles de Gaulle is 27knots which would give the runner a pace of around 1:10mins/km depending on direction. That would really screw up your Strava stats
I occasionally see civilians on Strava doing the same thing, running laps around the deck of a cruise ship. The speeds and distances look ridiculous.
So I'm actually confused that in the little image of his run in the article it seems he's often making absolute progress in the opposite direction the ship is going for part of each lap. Like, was the ship going unusually slowly?
His pace was 4:38 over 7.2km and his track seems to backtrack at times so either the carrier was doing weird maneuvers or he is running faster than they are carrier.<p>I imagine they are in no rush to get closer to Lebanon. So maybe they are running in circles
Reminds me of Fitbit using heartrate to approximately guess calories used.<p>I'm told with a lengthy night on uppers can you can get your 24/hr burn up to the 7000-10000.
I seriously doubt there is a country on earth which lacks the capability to detect an aircraft carrier's presence in the Mediterranean sea.<p>We are not talking about stealth vehicles.
Mediterranean maybe (although I'm not sure), but it's actually very hard to find a ship, even as large as an aircraft carrier, in the ocean. The empty space is just too big. Satellites have hard time taking pictures of every square mile of a sea to find any ship, yet alone the one you need.
Ships are giant hunks of metal and radio emitters. They light up on SAR satellites[0]. Sentinel-1 gets whole earth coverage and a revisit time of 1-3 days[1] with two active satellites. And that's the public stuff, if you can afford a fleet or even some extra fuel to steer them into interesting orbits you can get faster revisits.<p>[0] <a href="https://x.com/hwtnv/status/2031326840519041114" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/hwtnv/status/2031326840519041114</a>
[1] <a href="https://sentiwiki.copernicus.eu/__attachments/1672913/Revisit%20time.jpg?inst-v=8a216200-52de-4ba5-a3cb-f92d9541d94d" rel="nofollow">https://sentiwiki.copernicus.eu/__attachments/1672913/Revisi...</a>
There is a french company (<a href="https://unseenlabs.com/fr/" rel="nofollow">https://unseenlabs.com/fr/</a>) that specializes in tracking ship at sea through observing their RF emission from space. Cool tech. I'm pretty sure their main clients are not all civil...
And they also don't travel alone.<p>5-10 ships moving at speed across the ocean. Blasting the skies with radar.<p>Its as easy as anything is to find it in the ocean. And were pretty damn good at tracking ships at sea even small fishing vessels let alone a floating city.<p>The threat model to CSGs are basically nuclear submarines from nations that would simply tail the group if needed.
I really don’t want to work for the defense industry, but I have to admit that they do have very fun problems to solve. You know there are people at NRO who are dedicated to ship tracking via satellite. I assume they can easily track ships without cloud cover, but how do they do it when it’s cloudy? Heat signatures? Synthetic Aperture Radar? Wake detection?
ELINT and SAR.<p>For the first one, just look at wikipedia lists of government says that fly as little triangular constellations, like Yaogan 9A, 9B, 9C on this list: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaogan" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaogan</a><p>Those are ELINT birds that use multilateration to spot emitters globally.<p>SAR can spot wakes far, far, larger than ships using the same techniques as SAR measuring ground erosion, etc.
I'd be mildly surprised if they not using SAR for this all the time, not only during cloud cover. The Soviet Union was using radar satellites (the RORSATs) to track carriers decades ago.
Neither SAR nor high resolution optical sensing are trivial at panopticon scale.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTpBMPjjFc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTpBMPjjFc</a> is a good overview of what's up there so far, and what's coming as they really try to scale the technology.<p>Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this. SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.<p>I would think that medium and high orbit optical tracking (daytime, cloudless sky) is probably used, because with video you can reasonably track subpixel targets if they're high contrast, without a lot of data transmission requirements.
> Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this.<p>I'm not sure why you assume this, this is factually incorrect. Satellite based SAR has been successfully used for civilian ship detection applications (traffic management, illegal fishing, smuggling detection, etc) for over three decades. I am sure its military use goes back much further.<p>> SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.<p>No? SAR satellites take thousands of SAR images of stationary scenes every day. It's true that object motion in the scene introduces artifacts, specifically displacement from true position - this is often called the "train off track" phenomenon, as a train moving at speed when viewed with SAR from the right angle will look like it's driving through the adjacent field rather than on the track. However, this isn't a significant problem, and can actually be useful in some situations (eg: looking at how far a ship is deflected from its wake to estimate its speed).
> You know there are people at NRO who are dedicated to ship tracking via satellite.<p>I feel like there must be people at NRO whi are dedicated to <i>sub</i> tracking via satellite.
I wish defense paid better. The problems are infinitely more interesting than ads. And it’s not like social media is a saint anyway.
Hmmm on the one hand murder, on the other hand ads
IME here in Colorado, a lot of them pay as well, or better, than run of the mill tech companies. I suspect the AI and "FAANG" companies may pay more, but I personally wouldn't work for any of those. In any case, I'd take $160k in Colorado over $240k in California any day.<p>And the problems are definitely a lot more interesting.
when it's cloudy, heat signatures won't help, infrared is blocked by clouds
Satellites only have to track, not find.<p>Aircraft carriers sail from home ports and are frequently visible to all. The Charles de Gaulle was previously in Denmark for instance, then obviously everyone can also see you crossing the English Channel and Straight of Gibraltar.<p>So from there it is only a matter of keeping an eye on it for anyone with satellites. So obviously all the "big guys" know where the other guys' capital ships are.
You would only need to find it once, potentially at a port, and then you can follow it.
> it's actually very hard to find a ship, even as large as an aircraft carrier, in the ocean<p>I just ran some googled numbers over my envelope, and I get that the Mediterranean sea (great circle distance between Gibraltar and Beirut is 2300mi) is about 14000x larger than the bow-to-stern length (858') of the carrier.<p>That's... not that terribly difficult as an imaging problem. Just a very tractable number of well-resolved 12k phone camera images would be able to bullseye it.<p>Obviously there are technical problems to be solved, like how to get the phones into the stratosphere on a regular basis for coverage, and the annoyance of "clouds" blocking the view. So it's not a DIY project.<p>But it seems eminently doable to me. The barriers in place are definitely not that the "empty space is just too big". The globe is kinda small these days.
<i>>Satellites have hard time taking pictures of every square mile of a sea to find any ship, yet alone the one you need.</i><p>That's why satellites use radars and scientific instrumentation magnetometers to find stuff like ships or even subs underwater.
There might be some secret technology that we're unaware of but as far as we know magnetometers can only be used to detect underwater targets at very short ranges. I highly doubt that they're used on military reconnaissance satellites.
Those suffer from the same problem. There's a lot of ocean, and if you don't know where to look then you won't find what you're looking for.
Eh, not really. Synthetic Aperture Radar satellites used for marine ship detection have extremely wide sensor swath widths, and ships show up as very bright radar targets against the ocean. Detecting a large ship, even in a very large search area, is almost trivial.<p><i>Identifying</i> a ship is harder, but not insurmountable. In particular, large ships like aircraft carriers tend to have very identifiable radar signatures if your resolution is high enough.
How do these work? I would think radar would have a very difficult time seeing a ship against the backdrop of the ocean from so high above. Is the satellite bouncing radar waves off the side of the ship as the satellite is near the horizon? Even if you can detect a ship, I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?
Even with an extremely low resolution radar hit they are very identifiable.<p>Most naval vessels move in groups/squadrons. Carriers basically always travel with a "carrier strike group"/CSG of a dozen other ships and destroyers often travel in "destroyer squadrons"/DESRONs. So any time you see a cluster of hits, just by the relative responses of each hit you can narrow down and guess the entire CSG/DESRON in one go and then work out which responses map to which ship in the CSG/DESRON once you have a good idea of which group you are looking at.<p>This is especially true because ships even within the same class have varying ages, different block numbers, and differing retrofits. So each one has a unique signature to it.<p>But also if you aren't completely certain you can always come back with a second high resolution pass and then it's trivial to identify each ship just visually.
Granted, but how does satellite radar actually see ships at all? How do the ships not blend into the ocean (the relative difference between the distances between ship<->satellite and ocean<->satellite is minescule)?<p>EDIT: the sibling comment already provided a high quality answer: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47458766">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47458766</a>
SAR operates in side-looking slant geometry.<p>Consider shooting a ray at the ocean at an oblique angle from a satellite: it bounces off and scatters away from you. Hardly any of the energy scatters back towards you.<p>Now, put a ship there. The ray bounces off the surface of the ocean and scatters up into the side of the ship, and from geometry, it's going to bounce off the ship and come straight back towards its original source. You get tons of energy coming back at you.<p>A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.<p>> I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?<p>That's one approach, there are so-called "tip and cue" concepts that do exactly this: a lead satellite will operate in a wide swath mode to detect targets, and then feed them back to a chase satellite which is operating in a high resolution spotlight mode to collect detailed radar images of the target for classification and identification.<p>However, aircraft carriers are <i>big</i>, so I don't think you'd even need to do the followup spotlight mode for identification. As an example, RADARSAT-2 does 35 meter resolution at a 450 km swath for its ship detection mode. That's plenty to be able to detect and identify an aircraft carrier, and that's a 20 year old civilian mission with public documentation, not a cutting edge military surveillance system. There are concepts for multi-aperture systems that can hit resolutions of less than ten meters at 500 km swath width using digital beamforming, like Germany's HRWS concept.<p>tl;dr: Radar works very well for this.
>A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.<p>This is why the Zumwalt and other low observable designs are going back to roughly tumblehome hulls:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#/media/File:USS_Zumwalt_(DDG_1000).jpg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#/media...</a><p>If only it could actually do anything. I genuinely don't understand how we refused to retrofit any weapon system to the gun mounts. We have 5inch guns. They aren't the magic cannon it was designed for but do they really not fit? Apparently we are now putting hypersonic missiles in those mounts instead.<p>Can't exactly make a Carrier that shape though.
A Zumwalt with 5 inch gun offers almost no mission capability above a simple coast guard cutter.<p>They're putting hypersonics on it because they've got 3 hulls and might as well get some value out of them, but not because it's what you'd design for from scratch.<p>The Zumwalt program was dumb from day 1. It was driven by elderly people on the congressional arms committees that have romantic notions of battleships blasting it out.<p>The reality is since the development of anti ship missiles, sitting off the coast and plinking at someone is suicidal, even if you have stealth shaping and uber guns of some sort.<p>It was a DoA mission concept.
The Zumwalt class are being refitted to carry CSP. And the boutique gun system is really a complex thing, it's not like packing in a bunch of VLS containers.
This is cool. Thanks for the detailed follow up!
[dead]
> I would think<p>Just do a youtube search and you'll find plenty of talking head explainer videos. Ignore the talking head and just look at the imagery and data they share.
<i>>if you don't know where to look</i><p>I mean fuck, I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too and just look there for the carrier. If I can't find the carrier there, then I can plot the course between France and hormuz and do a brute force search over that course taking into account such a ship's relative velocity, since it's not like the carrier is gonna zig-zag through south america and the north pole on its way there to avoid detection. Is what I'm saying something sci-fi?
It is dangerous to believe a problem goes only as deep as one's understanding of it.
> I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too<p>Seems to have come as a shock to the US government.
This. You can search for years for a ship and never find it.
We couldn’t find a commercial jet (MH370). Both, while it was still flying in the air and after it was presumably lost in the ocean.
They couldn’t track it in the air nor can they still find its remains after looking for it for so long. This problem is not trivial.
A commercial jet is both way smaller and faster moving than an aircraft carrier. I suspect this is like saying: why can’t you see the fly in the photo, the turtle is right there!
There's a nonzero chance military intelligence agencies of multiple countries know <i>exactly</i> where that plane fell, but none can say anything, because that would reveal the true extent of their capabilities.
Just like it was with that amateur sub that imploded. It later surfaced the Navy heard the implosion and knew what it was.
They could just feed the data to some associated outside party with some other plausible explanation. But, there are only a few, maybe two countries, with the ability and desire to have listening stations all over the ocean, and neither one is particularly interested in the Indian ocean.
The Indian Ocean is both larger and has significantly less traffic than the Mediterranean. And a 777 is about 16x faster than a carrier.
Surprisingly, it is much easier to find a big chunk of steel floating on the Mediterranean, knowing where it was a couple of days ago, than a smaller object disintegrated in small pieces under the Indian Ocean. Go figure.
MH370 crashed in the Pacific.<p>Look at the globe some day from that angle and compare it to the Mediterranean.
Err, no. The consensus and available evidence including washed up components seems to be that it crashed in the Indian Ocean, that's the (also vast) space between ~Australia and ~Africa, bounded in the north by Indonesia, the Indian subcontinent, and Arabia. It crashed somewhere in the eastern portion, not far from Indonesia and Australia. Currents then took parts as far as the Maldives/Sri Lanka, IIRC. The Pacific is the other (eastern) side of Australia, which stretches from the Aussie-Kiwi approach to the South Pole to Alaska, and Vladivostok to Tierra del Fuego.
> Currents then took parts as far as the Maldives/Sri Lanka, IIRC<p>Some bits ended up on a beach of the Réunion island, closer to Madagascar than Sri Lanka. I am not disagreeing, it’s just that the whole story is fascinating. It’s easy to think "well, it just crashed into the sea so of course some bits would show up on a beach" until you look at the Indian Ocean with a proper projection and figure the scale.
Floating is a powerful physical configuration! You get currents plus windspeed. If you're in to this sort of thing, I can recommend <i>The Seacraft of Prehistory</i>, <i>We: The Navigators</i>, and <i>Archaeology of the Boat</i> approximately in that order.
Are you making the same point as the person you said "err, no" to, or are you correcting the inconsequential details while not addressing their main point?
Different times. Now there are thousands of LEO satellites.
Nobody was looking for MH370 while it was in the air. After a few hours, it rapidly became a submarine, which is a type of craft that's well known for being hard to find. In addition to that, it took on its new submersible form in one of the most remote areas of the ocean, rather than in a small and very busy sea.
Yeah id be more impressed if he found a submarine using strava
Here you go: <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/videos/article/2025/01/13/stravaleaks-dates-of-french-nuclear-submarine-patrols-revealed-by-careless-crew-members_6737005_108.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.lemonde.fr/en/videos/article/2025/01/13/stravale...</a>
Especially considering the limited jogging/biking space on a sub.
How about secret bases?<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracking-app-gives-away-location-of-secret-us-army-bases" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...</a>
Sure, but there's a big difference between using nation-state resources like spy satellites, and using a public API exposed by a fitness app.<p>Not everyone can use spy satellites, and even if we're only talking about nation-states, many (most?) countries do not have spy satellites.
If they have ships in the area sure but picking it out of the ocean if you don't already know where it is on satellite data is a lot harder. Until the last decade or so satellite tracking of ships visually was essentially the domain of huge defense budgets like the US that had more continuous satellite coverage. It'd be interesting to see how well that could be done now with something like Planet and tracking it forwards in time from port visits or other known publicized pinpointing.
Maybe stupid question but how would Iran do it? They don’t have any ships in the area and also don’t have any satellites that could take pictures, right?<p>Or does getting told by Russia count?
America has intelligence-sharing agreements with allied nations wherein our satellites are taking photos on the allies' behalf of things that we might not otherwise be interested in. I'm sure China and Russia have similar arrangements with their allies.
I bet you could do it with a big enough expense account with Planet Labs and the compute power to process the images these days. Track it forwards from the last public port of call or *INT leak like this strava data. 3.7m accuracy seems like enough to do it. It's not enough to target it directly but it would be enough to get more capable assets into the right area a la the interception of Japan's ships when they attacked Midway.
Look at marinetraffic.com and then try to map a course across the Mediterranean that won't be seen by dozens of ships. It's impossible.
Russia and China help them.
Yes, Russia helps Iran target our troops and (likely) sailors.<p>But don't you dare suggest that hanging a portrait of Putin in the White House is inappropriate, or a Republican might get mad.
> <i>seriously doubt there is a country on earth which lacks the capability to detect an aircraft carrier</i><p>They probably lack the ability to figure out which specialists are on board.
Isn’t the point that if you can identify one naval vessel by this means you can probably identify many?
Especially aircraft carriers deliberately let their position public in order to cause the fear and alignment that are destined to. It's that they don't publish their accurate position but only the approximate.
If Charles de Gaulle turns off AIS, how does North Korea find it?
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malligyong-1" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malligyong-1</a>
Track not the ship itself but the planes that take off and land on it. Many sites will expose their paths, you'll see the planes circling in a pattern around "some void" - that's the ship.
Many sites? Can you show me any De Gaulle aircraft currently in-flight?
You can find yesterday's location easily on flightradar24.com. Try it it will make you feel like an ossint sleuth or something. Look to the south of Cyprus.<p>Now that's not realtime because I'm telling you after the fact. But if you were paid to do it, of course, then you'd spend some money on an actual account on this and similar services, which would get you many more filters and much more precise data.
If de Gaulle is turning off AIS, it stands to reason that it's also turning off the transponders in the air wing.
The US tried this with their Venezuela raid. It resulted in a tanker almost hitting a passenger plane <i>twice</i> in two days. [0]<p>Turning off AIS while allowing civilian traffic is incredibly risky, and creating a huge no-fly zone in the Med is politically tricky.<p>[0]: <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/16/americas/venezuela-near-collision-intl-latam" rel="nofollow">https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/16/americas/venezuela-near-c...</a>
Not at all, depends on the mission. In fact you can spot yesterday's location of the ship right now on flightradar.<p>It was patrolling ~100km below Cyprus's main southern city.<p>Move the timeline to yesterday, find a non-Boeing military plane in that zone, enable flight traces and keep trying planes until you see an ovoidal pattern circling around "nothing"... but that nothingness moves over time.m; that's the ship.
> In fact you can spot yesterday's location of the ship right now on flightradar.<p>No need to go that far. Macron did press conferences in Cyprus and on the Charles de Gaulle. You just need a passing glance at the headlines of a French newspaper. Or any decent international news channel (granted, that’s a bit tricky in the US).
I checked - nothing but commercial air: <a href="https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2026-03-19-02:31&lat=33.698&lon=31.337&zoom=7.0" rel="nofollow">https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2026-03-19-02:31&lat=...</a>
Maybe, maybe not. When the US did their venezuela maduro operation they turned on adsb on f15e for whatever reason. And only turned it on for like a portion of the mission so maybe that wasn’t intentional.
Why make it easier for them?<p>I think people tend to lack imagination about how some piece of intel could be used by an adversary.
That's not really the point. The issue is that a soldier almost certainly without a lot of thought ended up leaking information that he wasn't aware of leaking.<p>And furthermore identifiable information of a particular individual, which people can use to for example find out what unit he is deployed with, which may give you information about what the mission is about and so on.<p>In WW2 when transmitting morse code individual operators used to have what was called a 'fist', skilled listeners could identify and track operators by their unique signature. This was used during world war 2 to track where particular individuals and units were moved which gave people a great deal of information not just where but what they were up to.<p>If you leak the Fitbit information of a guy who foreign intelligence has identified as being part of a unit that's always involved in particular operations you didn't just give something obvious away but potentially something very sensitive.
Sarah Adams (ex-CIA, The Watchfloor podcast) literally discussed this possibility yesterday in a podcast titled "Your Phone Isn't Safe Right Now"<p>Most people here are tech savvy and understand VPNs, location sharing in apps, privacy agreeements, metadata in shared/posted JPEG files, etc but the episode I mentioned is like 20 minutes & provides maybe 100 different things you can do to reduce your footprint & increase your security while traveling abroad.<p>According to her, the biggest threats were fitness apps & dating apps (both of which are mentioned heavily here in the comments)
A year ago they found where Swedish politicians were through the Strava apps of their bodyguards.<p>Clearly we're not learning from our mistakes...
An aircraft carrier can be seen with the naked eye from 10 meters above the shore for about 28 miles.<p>So the entire Spanish coast, Moroccan coast, Algerian coast, mallorca, sardegna, Sicily, tunesia, the Greek isles, and who knows how many cruise ships, fishing vessels, and commercial aircraft all saw this ship.
Are you aware of a policy that allows Strava when within sight of shore, but bans it when under more sensitive operation?<p>Or is this article perhaps better interpreted as an example of a dangerous behavior that could be happening also during those sensitive times (in which case, it is unlikely that French media would be even running a story with a map of the sensitive location)?
If you can guess what shape the runner was going in, you could infer a lot of information from that squiggly line in the picture. You could determine the ship's course and speed.
Loose lips sinks ships. So does uncontrolled mobile phone access. It just doesn’t rhyme as well.
Seems like the phone was using some internet access point hosted on the ship? In which case, the French naval IT services should ban certain risky services to soldiers.
it's mind boggling. personal mobile phones have potentially anyone's software running on them and that can connect to the internet means that literally anyone could be tracking and gathering who knows what data from your operation. it's an indication of the greatest unseriousness.
How does the smart watch have any service out in the middle of the Med? Must be getting it from the ship, are they not firewalling outbound traffic?
GPS watches don't need service, they just need line of site to the GPS satellites. Uploading to Strava requires service, but that can be done any time after the activity.
Under wartime conditions they would but rules are looser out of combat so sailors can use personal devices for entertainment etc to keep morale up.
GPS tries to cover the whole globe, app uses GPS to get location. Ship probably has internet connection in the from of wifi or a cell tower with a starlink or other sattelite backbone link and app's traffic is encrypted so ships firewalls cannot easily block this
How hard is it to find an aircraft carrier without resorting to this? Not saying there’s no privacy leak here but aircraft carriers are not exactly stealthy…
This is a repeating phenomenon, and probably worse on land. Fitness and run tracking apps also reveal troop locations and concentrations on land (location clusters reported by apps targeted at non-local-language audiences stick out like a sore thumb).
Tracking an aircraft carrier should not be difficult for any state (satellite images). The fact that civilians can do it too now is interesting.<p>It would be another matter if that was tracking a nuclear submarine...
No, this is notoriously difficult. The earth is vast and a carrier is tiny in comparison.
Commercial satellites can get 30cm resolution images (military satellites can likely get even more high resolution).<p>The earth is vast, but once you pinpoint a carrier, a simple software loop should be able to track it for ever (those carrier do not move fast).<p>I cannot imagine this being remotely difficult for a state to have a constant pin on every large carriers sailing on earth. There even might be some civilian apps for that too.<p>But again, Strava and other connected + geolocation apps have been an issue for military personnel in general.
Difficult 40 years ago maybe.<p>I can't imagine with the satellite image and compute we have it would be difficult at all to know the real_time +- 30min location of any carrier by maybe the top 5-10 states, even at night.
[dead]
Sub wouldn't get a GPS signal, luckily.
The SMB segment in emerging markets is genuinely interesting for SaaS. The unit economics work differently — lower ARPU but massive TAM, and the willingness to pay is often tied more to savings (vs. current solution cost) than to value creation.
More than accurate enough to put an ASM in the right ballpark.<p>Modern militaries face some interesting challenges.<p>Possibly mobile apps should be designed to be somewhat secure for military use by defaul, backed by law.<p>Alternately, phones should have a military safe OS with vetted app store. Something like F-droid, or more on toto phone ubuntu, but tailored.<p>Obviously, you still need to be security conscious. But a system that is easy to reason about for mortals would not be a bad idea.<p>Rules like secure by default, and no telemetry or data exfiltration, (and no popups etc), wouldn't be the worst. Add in that you then have a market for people to actually engage with to make more secure apps, and<p>A) Military can then at least have something like a phone on them, sometimes. Which can be good for morale.<p>B) it improves civilian infrastructure reliability and resiliance as well.
Along with the Strava secret base location leak, another interesting one was the ship with a contraband Starlink:<p><pre><code> As the Independence class Littoral Combat Ship USS Manchester plied the
waters of the West Pacific in 2023, it had a totally unauthorized Starlink
satellite internet antenna secretly installed on top of the ship by its gold
crew’s chiefs. That antenna and associated WiFi network were set up without
the knowledge of the ship’s captain, according to a fantastic Navy Times
story about this absolutely bizarre scheme. It presented such a huge security
risk, violating the basic tenets of operational security and cyber hygiene,
that it is hard to believe.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://www.twz.com/sea/the-story-of-sailors-secretly-installing-starlink-on-their-littoral-combat-ship-is-truly-bonkers" rel="nofollow">https://www.twz.com/sea/the-story-of-sailors-secretly-instal...</a>
It's been a problem for nearly 2 decades.<p>Think about it: suddenly, in the middle of the desert in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/Niger/Djibouti a bunch of people start using a fitness tracker every morning (and the clusters show up in Strava). Did some village suddenly jump on the "get fit" bandwagon? Or could it be a bunch of US Marines/SpecOps/etc people trying to keep fit.
Tangential but related: Do these workout apps correct for the movement of the ship when tracking your runs? I imagine it's a borderline-common scenario that someone on a cruise ship goes for a jog on deck?
Some people here say an aircraft carrier can be seen from satellites so it's not a big deal. They miss a point (as I did too): this means you can identify individuals present on the carrier, so they become vulnerable to investigation and blackmail. Another country could threaten this individual's family to give some important information or worse (sabotage).
Same thing happened with hidden Antarctica bases in 2018.
It would be cool if they actually wer just altering the GPS location data before uploading, so the location reported was false. GPX/TCX files are trivial to edit. "All warfare is based on deception"
I wonder if there is a way to stop these apps when they enter the vessel.
<a href="https://archive.is/jDMmD" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/jDMmD</a>
President Xi - my country yearns for freedom.
All through this whole ghost fleet thing I've had this question as to how a large ship in the sea can possibly keep its movements secret. Large media organisations seem to be unable to say where large tankers have been if they turn their transponders off.<p>Don't we have constellations of satellites constantly imaging the entire earth, both with visual and synthetic aperture radar, with many offering their data freely to the public? Wouldn't a large ship on the ocean stick out somewhat? And yet journalists seem lost without vesselfinder. Is this harder than I'm imagining, or are they just not paying the right orgs for the info?
That's the deception plan.
I remember a friend worked on a base where they disallowed cellphones.<p>...until there was an active shooter and they couldn't call for help.<p>so they did away with that and started allowing phones.<p>personally hate there are too many vested interests working against the common sense that people should own and control their devices, which could prevent nonsense.
Those LeMonde guys are pretty sharp, it was on Twitcher only yesterday ... <a href="https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2034734061613129740" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2034734061613129740</a>
What's funny is I can imagine the sailor not understanding how the code works and properly setting up a "privacy zone" while at port to mask his location and verifying it was working while there<p>then of course while at sea, it's the same ship but different location<p>not like your home or workplace typically relocates itself<p>imagine being a coder at Strava trying to figure out how to deal with that, it's techically not possible<p>However it's a great marketing opportunity for Stryd footpod which can track distance without GPS<p>I wonder what a moving deck at even 10mph would do to a Stryd though<p>The GPS must have added 10mph? But it's all relative to the deck vs the sea, hmm
As a coder at strava fixing this would not be hard at all.<p>A global "Private mode" switch that sends zero data about anything at all while it is enabled. Your runs stay on device. All network calls are rejected. No data saved with it enabled will ever leave the device, full stop.<p>Every single app in the world should have this. It should be an OS setting that forces network calls to fail as well as part of the app review process that no data generated during a private session can ever leave the device.<p>They don't do that because they like your data for money.
you can do that "offline" with any regular Garmin<p>but once you start using the Strava app the point is socializing activity, otherwise why bother?<p>Strava privacy zones actually work, well as long as the location isn't physically moving by itself, lol<p>hope the sailor didn't get into too much trouble if it was innocent enough
tragic if not comic.
Merde!
If I were china I would buy strata and offer all features free of charge
That's nothing, we also have this: <a href="https://github.com/BigBodyCobain/Shadowbroker" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/BigBodyCobain/Shadowbroker</a>
Seems we need a new digital category for Darwin Awards.<p>This is the modern way to die of stupidity — use your fitness watch app to log your miles on an online app instead of locally — so reveal your operational location.<p>The US had one of its secret bases in Afghanistan fully mapped for anyone to see by its residents logging their on-base runs.<p>Now, the French aircraft carrier is pinpointed en route to a war zone.<p>Yes OPSEC is hard, and they should be trained to not do this, but it seems to be getting ridiculous. If I were in command of such units, I'd certainly be calling for packet inspection and a large blacklist restriction of apps like that (and the research to back it up).<p>Local first is not just a cute quirk of geeks, it is a serious requirement.
No amount of OPSEC lectures or packet inspection is going to sufficiently keep the carrier's private information private. There's thousands of sailors on these things. When details like its location and readiness level actually need to be secret, all regular internet access should just be cut off. Radio silence. I assume this person had internet access to use Strava because the carrier isn't yet in some higher level of readiness and its location isn't yet considered much of a secret.
You are correct<p>Any system that is based on the perfection of humans is doom from the start ..<p>A jammer is easy and very effective, you can even use it at home to piss off your neighbor, so I guess the army can do it too;
> This is the modern way to die of stupidity<p>With how bad the human experiment generally is, I rejoice in the fact that our own stupidity will be our undoing. Imagine if we did things correctly.
I recall something similar happened on US ships last year because of the Applewatch.
wow amazing
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
> It's not a declaration of war to project your military power to a region you have an interest in.<p>There was no declaration of war by anyone so far, and I doubt Iran would wait for an official letter telling them they're allowed to sink a US allied carrier, especially now that they killed the leader's wife, son, dad, and a bunch of relatives (plus the only dude who the US could reasonably negotiate with)
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war</a><p>Nobody declares war these days. It is always going to be some type of 'special military operation' at best.<p>Declaring war implies sticking to the rules. Decapitation strikes on the leadership with side portions of schools getting bombed would be considered illegal if war had been formally declared. Equally, having cluster munitions rain down from the sky over populated cities is also not exactly morally correct.<p>Rules makes war a sport of sorts, it might as well be boxing where you are not supposed to bite ears or punch below the belt. Yet, if you came under assault and needed to defend yourself, then a bite to the ear or a kick in the balls might make sense at the time.
I think the international community is demonstrating to the US that they can't drop their military support for their allies and also expect that they still help to clean up their messes.
I kind of understand that, although of course i completely disagree with their line of thinking. Iran is everyones problem and open conflict like this would have been hard to avoid down the road. Point is they had <i>months</i> to anticipate this latest conflict, why did they do absolutely nothing to mitigate this? Why was the UK apparently completely unprepared? Europe's economy is suffering, more then America. Why do we even bother with a Navy if we don't wan't to use it?<p>Also what military support did they drop exactly? Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever. I will point out that it was the US, through a combination of bombing and diplomacy that got rid of the Houthi threat to shipping. Nobody else succeeded.
How is Iran anyone but Israel and USA's problem?
The pan of oil on the stove is everyone's problem, but when the dumbass decides the way to deal with it is to pour water on it, it is now in everyone's interest to leave the area.
Generally, the one who causes the problem should fix it. Especially when the problem they caused is hurting their friends.<p>It takes a really good friend to not only accept and forgive the hurt caused, but to help fix the problem, too. Usually an apology from the problem-causer must come first.<p>I think what we're seeing is that the USA has un-good-friended so many countries that it has no good friends left with the military capabilities to help. It has allies maybe, but nobody who would do such a favor after being victimized by the asker and the problems they caused, without even so much as an apology.<p>It certainly doesn't help that the USA is asking for help, but probably wants to boss around anybody who volunteers, and it is doing none of the work itself. Sounds like a toxic team.<p><i>> Iran is everyones problem</i><p>Iran is not everyone's problem. <i>The effects of israel and the USA's war of choice on Iran</i> are everyone's problem. What we're seeing now is not a result of anything Iran did, but rather something the USA and israel did. The worse the effects get, the more blame will be heaped upon the USA and israel. To that end, most countries are likely of the attitude that they have already incurred enough costs from the USA and israel's war, and that the USA and israel had better fix the problem they caused ASAP.
there are no friends at the global scale just alliances. If Europe doesn't want to help then there's no forcing them to. Conversely, if the US manages to get the strait open and oil flowing there's no stopping them from requiring Europe to pay a little extra for the trouble. Fair or not, who's going to stop the other side? You can't exactly ask to speak to the manager.
It's exactly this kind of transactional approach that is reducing the US's influence on its allies in the first place.
If the USA manages to get the strait open and oil flowing, then allies might be satisfied with the harms the USA caused, even if there is no apology, much less restitution. At that point, we will be back to the status quo.<p>If, at that point, the USA perpetrates any sort of further economic attacks on allies, then of course they will respond appropriately.
> Iran is everyones problem<p>It was at best a regional problem until the US and israel decided to fuck things up and make it a global problem, they didn't have nukes, they were not building nukes, even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats, so just like israel, everyone is OK with them having nukes despite being the same type of religious nutjob thecracy, strange. Iranians are very rational when it comes to escalation, more so than israel.<p>> Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever<p>Yeah idk, maybe don't put cia bases there then? And maybe don't antagonize russia for decades and act surprised when they act like enemies.<p>You won't catch me defending Russia or Iran but get the fuck out of here with the "the US are the good guys and we're doing god's work by wiping out evil regimes" rhetoric lmao<p>> Nobody else succeeded.<p>Yes because that's the only thing they know and understand, bombs, if the problem cannot be solved with bombs they're useless
> even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats<p>I'd agree for just about any other country, but Iran have a terrorist regime that is funding terrorists everywhere. They are not like Pakistan or North Korea etc, Iran is crazy and doesn't follow normal international norms.<p>Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.
The US has been funding terrorists for longer than the current state of Iran (or even its predecessor) has been around: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état#United_States'_role" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état#Uni...</a> and we still haven't nuked anybody in anger since 1945.
Funding coups is not the same thing as funding terrorists. Terrorists attacks and kills civilians, coups just targets leaders. If Iran funded coups in nearby countries that would be a sane thing to do, funding terrorists is what makes them an insane force that you can't predict what they will do with a bomb.<p>Russia also funds coups, not terrorists. You didn't see a lot of suicide bombings and such in Ukraine before Russia attacked, Russia did the sane thing and sent in Russians in the Russian areas to build support etc, funding terrorism is just plain evil and serves no purpose. That is the difference.
> coups just targets leaders.<p>This died day 1 when you bombed a fucking school and killed 168 girls. For a lot of these countries the US is a terrorist state. It doesn't matter if the explosive is strapped to a guy's chest or to a tomahawk
OK then how about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#U.S._military_and_financial_assistance" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#U.S._military_and_fina...</a>
> Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries<p>Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao, a country which just attacked them without declaring war, pearl harbor style, without congress approval, against all kind of international laws, because israel was going in anyways (according to Rubio) for their holy war<p>Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.
> Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao<p>That is no reason to bomb them. Belarus hosts Russian bases but Ukraine doesn't bomb them. International norms is that military bases that aren't actively used to attack aren't valid targets, only Iran breaks that.<p>> Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.<p>They are crazy, they got the entire middle east against them now with those attacks. I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks, they do however condemn Iran for launching attacks at them. Iran strategy failed fully and all they do is dig in further and launch even more attacks on these countries.<p>That is insane and serves no purpose.
> That is no reason to bomb them.<p>For you, for the new leader of Iran who just lost his dad/wife/brother/son in US strikes it might sound like a very reasonable thing to do.<p>> That is insane and serves no purpose.<p>How do you qualify the original attack that started the whole thing? Iran has been pretty clear about how it retaliates and escalates, they did not attack all the targets on day 1, they gradually increased with the US/Israel strikes. They only attacked foreign infrastructure once their own equivalent had been struck first<p>What do you think about the US/Israel strikes on historical buildings, electrical infrastructure, schools/uni, civilian research centers? What do you think of hegseth literally saying they're here to bring death and destruction ?<p>I think the US got drunk on their own supply of "we can do whatever the fuck we want because we have the biggest bombs and the cultural superiority".<p>> I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks,<p>Well you clearly didn't read much outside of US/Israel propaganda
<i>> Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.</i><p>To the extent this might be true, it seems like it would be even more true of the two countries that unprovokedly bombed a third party country to start the war in the first place.
What actual terrorism they funded that was actually deadlier than what US created in Iraq with ISIS (created as a result of pretty much the same, let's get some country stripped by force of some [imagined] WMDs, US adventure)?
Again, how should the UK use the Navy here?
>Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever.<p>This has always been the stupidest take.<p>Do you know how Europe always planned to pay their part of NATO?<p>Blood.<p>Go look at war plans if things ever got hot with the soviets. Germany would be gone. The plan was always hundreds of thousands of dead Europeans while the US geared up to come save the day. America's plan for NATO was the same as it's contribution to the first two world wars: Sell all the guns, ammo, fuel, and food required to keep Europe alive while their territory was wiped clean by war.<p>Compare US casualties in either World War with European casualties. That was always the plan.<p>Europe's contribution was the graveyards they would have to plow after the war.<p>Complaining about some budgeting is insane. That was always just a bonus kickback.<p>So, exactly how things go with Ukraine. They die, we profit, maybe their country survives after, US remains basically untouched, though that part is no longer reality.
NATO countries need to keep their military close to the Noth Atlantic to protect Greenland from recent unexpected threats.
As the UK chief of defense staff commented drily: "we have an aircraft carrier, it's called Cyprus".
> Unrelated but the UK has 2 aircraft carriers (but not enough planes, but that's for a different time). Why aren't they being deployed?<p>Because the UK isn't really in the war, and doesn't want to be?
They move a carrier into a vulnerable position in the Strait, where an attack by a tiny boat could both result in causalities <i>and</i> draw the UK into another protracted war in the Middle East with no clear exit condition and even more casualties?<p>And for what, exactly, a pat on the back from Trump? (who will then inevitably turn on them after a week and blame them for anything that goes wrong in the war.)<p>If escorting ship traffic was so straightforward with only upside, the US would be doing it already. Instead of trying to get someone else to take that risk.
> this war<p>There is no war; there is a speical military operation, an excursion or a preemptive retaliatory defensive strike.
Because even the UK is getting fed up with Trump? They literally started preparing to deploy on of the carriers to the Gulf and Trump basically told them to fuck off because they were "late" to the war? Now he's changed his mind again, who gives a damn? He can reap what he has sowed.
deploy and do what exactly? Get involved and potentially sacrifice a few UK soldiers to stroke Trumps ego? Sit around and look pretty? Having a carrier there doesn't magically make problems go away.
Quite. It will in fact make a lot of problems for you if it gets attacked as then you need to decide if you've just had war declared on you and have to decide what to do about that.<p>Escorting shipping through the Straight isn't like helping an old lady across the road, it's doing it at a red crossing light while pointing an AK47 through the windscreen of the cars with your finger on the trigger daring them to test your resolve.
> deploy and do what exactly?<p>To get sunk by a $20k drone, the most likely outcome at that point
Cheap drones are only effective against relatively soft targets. Weak penetration and small warheads limit their utility.<p>Many countries already have long-range drones designed to attack ships i.e. anti-ship missiles. They cost $1-2M a piece. It would still require a minimum of many direct hits to sink a modern aircraft carrier, as commonly demonstrated for SINKEX.
How would a drone sink a carrier? If Iran could do that they would already have sunk the American carriers.<p>The risk at the straights aren't drones but torpedoes and mines and attack boats.
You do not put your resources in danger unless you are actually ready to commit to it. And I mean possible loss of them and then entering to much hotter war.
Many questions:<p>I can assume Strava is GDPR compliant and would not publish this information without the sailors concent?<p>Does the French military not stress in their training the dangers of these data disclosures?<p>Why does the carriers network not have adequate measures against this sort of data exfiltration?<p>Why is Le Monde tracking a french sailors location data?
Maybe it was just an old stupid treason? Someone against the war and… hard to believe there are no rules about location.
I don't know about Strava, but my Apple Watch will detect when I'm going on a walk or a bike ride and ask if I want to track it. I just instinctively say yes. Strava might do the same and so it could just be habit for the sailor and a dumb mistake.
You don't need to confirm anything. You just configure it once to upload your runs that you record on a Garmin watch or whatever, and forget. It's not impossible to use Garmin watch without any online accounts and uploading your data anywhere, but as it is with all wearables today, they intentionally make your life harder for it. Not to mention that most people who run regularly use Strava or something equivalent to track your workouts anyway, so one really wouldn't think much about it, unless explicitly forced by officers to disconnect everything. And, honestly, given how easy it is to find an aircraft carrier (for god's sake, even a civilian can do that!), I doubt that it even worth it. Le Monde is just making cheap scandal out of nothing. As always.
Maybe it was fake. Someone with a water-borne drone and Starlink could spoof it, in order to throw those pesky Iranians off the scent. Unless you were on the aircraft carrier, had satellite imagery or could physically see it, it would be hard to prove that it was a fake. Any attempt at debunking would meet fierce resistance from Strava bros.
What's interesting here isn't that nation-states can track aircraft carriers - they've always been able to. It's that Le Monde did it with what's essentially a consumer API. The 2018 Strava heatmap incident showed this data leaks passively; now we're seeing it used for active, targeted tracking by journalists with a story idea and some scripting. That gap closing is the actual news.