Plum City – (AbelDanger.net). United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Obama-mentor Lester Crown’s sponsorship of General Electric’s ‘Mind the Bowman Gap’ devices, to the London Underground bombers’ alleged hack of ostensibly air-gapped SNAP* terminals to synchronize a 7/7 ‘Wag the Dog’ attack with body counts from the Resilience morgue at the Honourable Artillery Company grounds.
Mario Duran and Capt. David Haas, of Army Field Support Battalion Northeast Asia at Camp Carroll, Korea, upgrade a SIPR/NIPR Access Point Terminal by replacing a component. The change reduces operating costs by enabling the SNAP to use DOD-owned satellite networks. (U.S. Army photo by Tim Unger, 403rd AFSB)
“Is the US military secret network SIPRNet physically or cryptographicaly separated/secured?
I’ve read the Wikipedia articles on SIPRNet and NIPRNet (which are pretty light on details) and they are supposed to be considered separate. At the network level, are they technologically incompatible or is there a high-level of human involvement to keep them unlinked and essentially airgapped?
Does SIPRNet run on its own fibre/cable/satellites/infrastructure or is it encapsulated with strong encryption running over public infrastructure? (I suspect it is both depending on the context and the speed at which secure comms need to be set up?)
@Marcin Why not? Only an issue if you have clearance and divulge classified info. The general public is welcome to speculate or share what we learn. – Jeff Ferland♦Jan 7 ’12 at 3:39
Because if some info is actually classified, then viewing it on your normal computer makes your computer classified, and thus subject to being taken away for ‘cleansing’. Or worse yet, the govt would ban access to StackExchange sites, preventing workers from a fantastic resource. – MarcinJan 7 ’12 at 14:28
In my country, freedom of speech and freedom of press are very important. While giving secrets away may be illegal, it is not illegal to publish and discuss them after they have been given away. A couple of years ago, the police raided the office rooms of a newspaper in order to learn about the source. The highest court ruled that this raid was violating the constituion. This site has an international target group, so it is up to each person to obey to their respective laws, (unless the StackExchange company takes actions as a hosting provider). – Hendrik Brummermann♦Jan 7 ’12 at 20:39
Marcin, what you say is not correct. I don’t think you understand how classification works (that’s certainly not how it works in the US). – D.W.Jan 3 at 21:06”
Another course of inquiry is that perhaps in the confusion of the day, when unnamed and yet unidentified victims were taken to the Resilience Mortuary, which was constructed in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company and where all the bodies of the victims were received over 36 hours later, the details of where they died were lost? Especially as it is unclear why the victims bodies were kept in two hotels, hardly secure or suitable locations, rather than public or hospital mortuaries, prior to the construction of the Resilience Mortuary.
Two mortuaries are being set up – these are at the Royal National Hotel and the Holiday Inn in Bloomsbury.
5.35 Human remains may be taken first to a location designated as a body holding area. This should be under cover and protected from the public view for reasons of security, protection and sensitivity. A bodyholding area should only be regarded as a temporary holding point between the site of retrieval and the designated mortuary.
5.36 The usual practice is for bodies to be taken to a temporary mortuary for post-mortems to be carried out. It is the responsibility of the coroner’s office to make arrangements for the transfer of bodies to the mortuary. This is co-ordinated by the police acting on behalf of the coroner’s office, using vehicles belonging to undertakers or police, although military transport may also be used for this task. It is essential to establish documented continuity in respect of each aspect of the recovery and transportation process.
Guidance for setting up the Body Holding Area, which should be inside the cordon which is set up around the scene, in this case the site of the bus and Russell Square, from the UK Resilience website:
3.15 To ensure appropriate quality control measures it will be necessary to establish a disaster victim or body holding area close to the scene. Experience has shown that it is best located near to the cordon control point ideally straddling the inner cordon line.
Inflatable structures have been used with success in the past.
3.16 A disaster victim holding area must not be confused with a temporary mortuary. The body holding area is a secure, private location where victims and human remains that have been recovered from the site can be temporarily held prior to transfer to a mortuary – temporary or otherwise. The disaster victim holding area acts as a quality control point for victim labels and other accompanying documentation. Identification of victims will not take place in the holding area.
3.17 The disaster victim holding area will be staffed by a police documentation officer with other appropriate support appointed by the scene evidence recovery manager. The staff in this area will maintain a written log of all victims and remains recovered from the site ensuring that these are placed in a suitable order for transfer to the mortuary. All movements will be carefully recorded to maintain an audit trail for the whole process.
3.18 Prolonged storage of victims is not appropriate at a disaster victim holding area and appropriate arrangements must be made to ensure minimal delay in transmission to the mortuary. It will be important to ensure that this facility is located with due sensitivity to privacy, for example whether it can be viewed from any media vantage points.
So it would appear that these two hotels which were inside the cordoned off area were designated as the Body Holding Areas. There has been no official report published which examined this procedure or indicates how these two hotels as sites for the body holding area were chosen. No mention is made of how the bodies were transported or who transported them to these hotels nor the method of identifying where the bodies were brought from. These guidelines, as part of the Mass Fatality Plan, were only issued to responders days before July 7th:
The London Mass Fatality Plan had been prepared over a number of years under the aegis of a multi-agency planning group which included representatives of all the key relevant agencies. It was approved by the Forum in March 2005 and formally circulated to all stakeholders at the end of June,just days before the bombings.
ITT’s Bowman VHF waveform software application has been successfully demonstrated last month, the U.S. defense electronics company announced yesterday.
The test proves that there will be VHF voice and data communications interoperability between the U.S. armed forces’ new Joint Tactical Radio System and the U.K. Bowman tactical communications system.
Bowman is being supplied to the British (and Netherlands) military through prime contractor General Dynamics UK Limited.
In the June 13 demo, engineers shared voice and data communications across the two radio systems, achieving a “major milestone for the collaborative tactical communications project,” ITT says.
Using a British Advanced Digital Radio and U.S. JTRS software defined radio test bed, ITT engineers were able to pass secure voice and networked data between the two nations’ systems. The demonstration took place at ITT’s Aerospace/Communications Division in Clifton, New Jersey.
The JTRS Bowman VHF waveform software application was developed by ITT under contract to the JTRS Network Enterprise Domain. It is to enable operators of U.S. JTRS radios to participate directly in the U.K.’s Bowman network.
The waveform application is the software that tells radios how to receive and process information. Most waveforms are country or system unique and therefore unable to ‘talk’ with other systems.
With this new, common waveform providing communications functionality, U.S. and U.K. forces will be able to communicate and share data, despite their different radio systems. The resulting battlefield communications interoperability is essential in today’s warfighting environment, ITT says.
The waveform software has completed formal qualification testing and is currently undergoing JTRS software communications architecture evaluation by the JTRS Test & Evaluation Laboratory, prior to its delivery into the JTRS information repository later this summer, says ITT.
The waveform interoperability demonstration was repeated using a U.S. JTRS crypto equipment application, developed under separate contract by Harris RF Communications Division, to prove that the U.S. security service supporting the waveform is also compatible with U.K. standards.”