digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Air Force One Defenses exposed on website

sfgate.com — Whenever the president travels, security is a prime consideration. Motorcade routes are kept secret, and premature release of information about a presidential trip aboard one of the twin Air Force One planes can result in the Secret Service canceling a visit.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • catullus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+102"motorcade routes are kept secret"
    ... not if President Logan has anything to say about it.

    anyone? anyone?
    • cheez, on 10/12/2007, -29/+13sad to say that i get it
    • petard, on 10/12/2007, -28/+13haha! great! I love 24! Best show ever!
    • NINJ4, on 10/12/2007, -26/+4don't remind me that i get it
    • patrickweber, on 10/12/2007, -26/+10Well, tomorrows episode should prove to be very interesting ;).
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10Well, I don't know what President Bartlett has to say about it. Anybody have a rundown on current fictional Presidencies and how much more the actors are making than the real president?
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -20/+5Congratulations, you can die knowing that you made a PERFECT digg reply!
      LOL
    • MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1lmao so true, so true.
    • blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -30/+34The only current fictional presidency I am familiar with involves a "President Bush." In this particular story, the president is authorized to leak any information he sees fit.
    • WB0DMA, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2These things do surface once in a while.
    • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think you're gravely underestimating terrorists if you believe for one second that they haven't weaseled their way into this information one way or the other ages ago.
    • Footman2004, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*****
  • p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -20/+32Perhaps we should pay less attention on tapping domestic calls and more on protecting state secrets.
    • catullus, on 10/12/2007, -23/+14oh, but hunting the commies is so much funnnnnnnn....


      /sarcasm
    • koshak, on 10/12/2007, -29/+15We are not tapping domestic calls. Might want to stop readng every ultra left anti Bush web site.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8For the ostrich koshak, "The next morning, the President gave a live eight-minute television address instead of his normal weekly radio address, during which he addressed the wiretap story directly and confirmed that he had in fact authorized domestic warrantless monitoring of calls originating or terminating overseas."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#February_5.2C_2006
    • Shlep, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11@koshak
      You might want to stop reading right-wing crap. The Crony General basically says Bush can spy on anyone he wants. Not to mention the fact that he's also admitted that "some" of the calls may have been domestic. You can't blame "the left-wing conspiracy" for the fact that I know this, he's admitted it while testifying.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Perhaps you are dead wrong.
    • samk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@osjpr:
      A call "originating or terminating overseas" is not a "domestic call."
    • tim11198, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Maybe we should pay more attention to establishing a state that doesn't need secrets.
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1read more. it goes into more detail. its a domestic call
  • uptown, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Two huge questions ...

    1) How'd these leak out?
    2) What retard would post it on the web instead of notifying authorities that they had these in their possession?
    • Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16"including the location of Secret Service agents within the planes -- was posted on the Web site of an Air Force base."

      This leads me to believe that it was on a government website. Looks like the Airforce wants Bushie assassinated? ;)
    • toomuchgreentea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+81) Because these info could be VERY out of date
      2) Did the Secret Service say the "leak" wasn't authorized and in fact it was used as a decoy?
    • DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1The information was probably found with a Carnivore(aka Ethelon) type tool by the department of homeland security.
    • mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Raidikuk: Be careful what you write. Putting those two words together will get you a personal visit at home from some very particular government employees (I'm not joking, and it doesn't matter if you were).
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2[quote]This leads me to believe that it was on a government website. Looks like the Airforce wants Bushie assassinated? ;)[/quote]

      Maybe they're sick of his crap like everyone else is?

      When your popularity rating is in danger of dipping below 30%, you have to start worrying about these things.
    • Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mark1372: If saying 'bush' and 'assassinate' in the same sentence is going to get someone to come to your house, then I say let's waste their time. Now, if he were actually making a threat it would be different.
    • bastawhiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0*George Bush meekly raises hand*

      "Whoops, I guess I let that one slip, too. Teeheeheehee"
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Excerpt:
    [ Information about Air Force One's anti-missile systems is considered particularly sensitive.

    "Having information about a target's countermeasures does two things," said Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute. "It gives you an opportunity to choose a different weapon and to choose a different attack style ... perhaps choosing to launch a salvo attack, or choose a missile that uses an active beam." ]

    So, instead of a heat seeking missile, you're saying terrorists should paint the target with a beam so the missile won't be fooled by Air Force One's countermeasures? Thanks for trying not to let this sensitive information fall into the wrong hands. It's the thought that counts, right?
    • flush2000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7since when does good journalism include telling supposed 'terrorists' how to take down high profile targets?
    • intoflatlines, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5i'm sure that air force one has countemeasures for this too..

      i'm not the only one who has seen Air Force One with Harrison Ford, right?
    • DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He said "for example" which he meant "not really this but something related to it that you would never guess by telling you this example." The guy who said it is from the Lexington Institute, not a Bush aid.
  • dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13is there any duty for the journalist to not continue to leak the information?
    • eleazar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9.. or the Digg poster?
    • unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The digg submitter is irrelevant his/she is not getting any compensation, the journalist on thee other hand...........etc
    • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If the government released this information, they have only themselves to blame. They are the sole cause of any damage this does to their national security. Rather funny actually, that the government is the worst threat to it's own country's national security.
    • DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No information was leaked in that article. He said "for example" and the guy who said it probably never saw the website. The journalist probably told this man from the Lexinton Institute, which I bet is a think tank, 'this general type of info was on the website, what could someone do if someone had that type of general information.' And he replied. Lexington Institute received it's name published, and no real information was leaked.
  • daFilms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20This can't be healthy:

    "...the document also shows the location where a terrorist armed with a high-caliber sniper rifle could detonate the tanks that supply oxygen to Air Force One's medical facility..."

    so the real question is... 'did Google cache it?'

    • cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Exploding tanks with a gun was busted on Mythbusters, Jaws edition. It just punctures them and the contents shoot out.
    • ketsugi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not if you use an explosive round...
    • kevin.gc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2just did a search for that quote. looks like it's been erased from google's cache
    • timmarhy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if your using and explosive round why not just shoot the engines out, ot ignite the fuel tanks.
    • mrbleu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its available at Cryptome, as you would expect :)
    • Chewy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These are OXYGEN tanks, not Gasoline. I would Imagine just a TOUCH more explosive.
  • cubikdice, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Lol why am i not surprised...
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8It must suck being the most hated man in the world. Ok, I guess the wealth and power mitigates it a bit.
  • hotdrop, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Dont worry president Chaney was never at risk from the publication of this document he has remained as always in a secret underground bunker.
    • MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Cheney is never at risk simply because his adversaries are afraid of getting shot in the face.
  • jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2If you like the president don't post the site here.
    • nogami, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17The US is currently being run by fools and criminals - nobody with half a brain likes ANY of them. The only reason to vote for them are for religious reasons (foolish), or monetary reasons (criminal). Those idiots are tearing your country apart - perhaps people might eventually notice and do something about it.
    • jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Do you know what sarcasm is?
  • ajpatel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8post the damn site

    if you believe for one second that they won't change things up now that it's been leaked, you're dumb as hell
    • PeeOnYou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Looks to me like an excuse for their AT&T wiretap deal to stand on its own two feet. Now they can cite terrorist activity on the web and say "if you have nothing to hide then why do you care if your internet is closely monitored 24 hours a day?"
  • heff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5link? pdf? anyone?
  • stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Question: If the Secret Service was not notified and the SF Chronicle simply published the publically available info, would Diggers support action against the Chronicle for reporting classified information even though the Chron did nothing wrong to obtain the material?
    • ajpatel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2no, i wouldn't support that
    • unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i vote 'NEY' on that one because its "publically available information" you want to punish the journalist they're just doing their yOb men'
    • unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unless SF Chronicle hired a 1337 hacker to retrieve the infomation, why do i feel someone is going to jail for this mishap!?
    • stark23x, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Those of you who say you would not support action against the Chron...you should be defending the blogger in this story: http://digg.com/apple/Apple_vs._Me

      The Cron did nothing illegal in reporting this information. You could even argue that morally and ethically they did nothing wrong. However...if Corporations are allowed to legally strongarm bloggers into revealing sources and crushing information, it will be a matter of degrees for lawyers and law enforcement to apply those cases to bigger fish. Like newspapers, magazines, television shows and films.
    • Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@stark23x: I can't fathom why you'd try and use this as support for Apple vs Blogger.

      Apple is asking the blogger to reveal his source, who quite clearly broke the law. Apple isn't 'gunning for' the blooger as is claimed. Someone released this, and that someone more likely than not signed an NDA.

      In this case, someone put this informaiton on the web (for whatever reason). The journalist doesn't seem to have a source other than the webserver.
  • ray4389, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Umm...who's the dumass to actually make a site with this? I mean...you can find who did what so easily on the net.
  • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Maybe the leak has something to do with this:

    http://news.zdnet.com/Air+Force+to+rely+on+Microsoft+for+network+security/2100-1009_22-5457344.html

    I can't find the link... I'm assuming Google has removed it from their listings. Maybe some crappy spiders were lucky enough to find it, and haven't been asked to remove it yet...
    • SystemError, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4MS for Security, that was the 1st mistake
    • RCHILD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6lmao "Turns to M$ for network security" Thats like turning to Christopher Reeve for dancing lessons.
  • Termina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does anyone have a link to this document? :)
    • incognegro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Surely someone will digg it up (NPI). I just want to read what all the fuss is about (and I swear im not a tuurrrrrrrrist)
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1its probably on one of the sites in this list
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Air_Force_bases
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5i think i found it, no joke. on page 65 it vaguely shows where the oxygen tanks are located. In total there are 10 pages about the plane, probably the most concerning is on page 69 there is a complete map of each deck and compartment which reveal pretty much everything.

      Im not going to post the link. I found it in 10 minutes on google though using some tricks. Probably will be receiving emails from osama and having some dudes at my house in a few minutes. AHH!
    • gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@ DigeratiPrime

      You're such a f'ing liar... STFU
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1arocine was less reserved and posted the link below. I found revision 10 from 2005 he found revision 11 from 2006.
  • synaesthesia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Some dopey Comm Squadron Airman just became the most ***** Airman in the history of the USAF
    • RatBagu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2EVERYONE blames the comm squadron, if it's not their fault, it's those damn intel squadrons...
  • scairborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Just PCS'd from Andrews and let me tell you this information is damning. OPSEC at Andrews is a pinnacle to its operations. I agree most ***** Airman in the history of the USAF
  • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Snippits from the article:
    the Air Force reacted with alarm
    posted on the Web site of an Air Force base.
    As of Friday, the document was still posted online.

    The Air Force must either not be that alarmed or not have control over their own servers. And if they don't have control, then who does, and is that control increasing or decreasing?
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this document appears on a large number of sites, there is no 1 site that accidentally posted this. its been on a number of .mil sites for years.
  • bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I tought it was an exageration the president using the 2 air force one for some trips (obviously there is only one) till the day I saw them landing, they came from opposite directions like 20 min appart. They don't take any chances at all.
    • mercano, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2could just mean the wind shifted. The direction a plane takes on or off a runway has little to do which way it is coming from or going to and allot to do with wanting a nice headwind.
    • bonlebon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually one came from the west at approaching altitude (very low) +/- 5 min to touchdown then the other came south 15-20 min apart, I was in my car at a light and thought hey that's air force one then when I stopped at the mall walking towards the gate saw it again and asked myself wtf???, this happened like 6 months after 9/11.
    • scairborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually we fly 2 VC-25's for a number of reasons mostly for mechanical malfunction reasons. On long trips or when several trips are done throughout the week or month we'll fly 2 because we don't get the maintenance time we would like. If you go to the Joint Open House Air Show at Andrews AFB in May, they usually have both of the take off on one of the days unannounced. Its really neat because Marine One will hover in over the crowd and then land at the far end of the runway and the two aircraft taxi (fast as hell might i add) to the near end of the runway, and then take their stances on the two runways at the same time and both fly out one right after another. Its something you can see "Only At Andrews" as Brigadier General D.S. Gray used to say.
  • b0rg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Kinda goes to show how hard it is to protect information, even when it's something totally freaking obviously in need of security - like payroll data, secret plans for the death star, or the vitally important formula for non-lethal pretzels for the president.
  • faust67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.howstuffworks.com/air-force-one.htm has images
  • arocine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24http://cryptome.org/af1-rescue.htm has the documents talked about in the article.
    • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You realize the NSA is now watching you... (and me for viewing that page)

      It's cool how they show the pic of Air Force One flying over Mount Rushmore for a description of the paint scheme... and the floor plans are interesting to look at... But yeah, I can see why this would piss off some people.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3yeah thats it. I found revision 10 of that pdf on a afb site. in fact if you google for the title of the document you get 278 results!
    • xshaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just shows safety hazards and such. Nothing fancy.
    • jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't think so...where are the "anti-missile defenses on Air Force One and detailed interior maps of the two planes -- including the location of Secret Service" mentioned in the article?
    • DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Information just wants to be free"
      -The Hacker Manifesto

      Thank you for that link. You are what makes the Internet great.
    • OnymousHero, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Thanks for the link, definitely will provide some interesting reading.

      -Mohammed Bin Masaoud
    • erissiva, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2arocine - Although I already had the link, I tip my hat to you for sharing it first.

      OnymousHero - It's people like you that cause the continuity of governmental systems such as the one that *leads* to terrorism of the kind that you reference. Congrats! By spreading fear using malformed scare-tactics, you create the kind of world that you express fear for in the same sentence.
      Wow.

      Two things:
      1) All information should be free - regardless.
      2) Society ultimately controls who is in power and who isn't in power. This includes the type of agencies (NSA, SS, Homeland Security, etc...) that are sent to spy on their own citizens just for sharing information. Sharing info such as this is important because it breaks down that horrible chain by just 1 more link.
    • OnymousHero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@erissiva

      YHBT
      YHL
      HAND
  • Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Assuming someone does actually put this information to use, what do you think the effect on our internet freedom will be?
  • DaveyDeadite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is pretty damn intriguing...but then again i've been on a 24 binge the last couple of week so maybe thats it?
  • Madnesswithin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0oops?
  • volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't think it was an accident... If I had that kind of information, it wouldn't take much from Osama's pocket book to get me to share it.
  • Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, I'm wondering how we can download it right now without them giving a damn. Isn't this a crime? Can the government put itself in jail as the greatest threat to national security?
  • JalenJade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From what I saw its nothing you can't gather from watching "Air Force One" as far as the floor plan and such. Nothing really special.. Still cool though.
  • geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2What I am trying to work out is quite WHY a democratically elected president needs such huge security precautions.

    I can understand the need to protect any high visibility person from the cranks and weirdos - but isn't this level of protection just a tad OTT ?
    • PeeOnYou, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Perhaps because in the past two elections he was NOT democratically elected... not only that but he's doing the opposite of what over 1/2 the nation wants him to do including elected members of congress. I would venture to say that might put a price tag on his head for some of those cranks and weirdos.
    • r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well when you consider how many of our presidents have been assassinated...
      And the fact is, AF1 frequently flies over International Territories, some of which are politically unstable and Surface to Air Missiles aren't the hardest thing for militias to acquire on the black market. Why shouldn't the plane that is commissioned to carry the Commander in Chief of our Military Defenses be equipped with counter measures to protect the lives of those on board in the event of attack?

      Even in peacetime, it's best to keep the Heads of State well protected against hostile forces. There's nothing over the top about Bushs' AirForce1. When first designed, it was originally intended to survive the initial phases of WWIII and provide an airborne command post in the event of nuclear attack while the President was en route to his/her undisclosed location.
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Perhaps because in the past two elections he was NOT democratically elected..."

      Oh please. Care to explain that?
    • MyNameIsFred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"WHY a democratically elected president needs such huge security precautions...."

      I would guess because people keep trying to kill presidents, both democratic and republican. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_attempts and the examples such as Corder who tried to crash a Cessna into Bill Clinton's Whitehouse. Or 9/11. Or Byck who tried to crash a commerical airliner into Nixon's Whitehouse. Then there are the many people who have used guns. Assassination attempts are relatively common.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4stealthboy- I'll explain. Bush stole the election. He gerrymandered the results in Florida. His frickin brother is the goverenor there.. and the then-state attorney genereal benefitted greatly from helping him win. where the hell have you been?.
  • GoFlyaKite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I wanna go for a ride in the 'Escape Pod' that was featured in Air Force One with Harrison Ford. :)
  • DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I don't the term "on the internet" is useless people can get the information and at least mirror it. I could put my social security number "on the internet" by running Apache for on my computer for a day, but does that really mean anything?
    • DanThe1Man, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Opps, I'm wrong, I didn't read all the digg comments.
  • star, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You know it's a scam when...

    "We are concerned with how it got there and how we can get it out."
  • casemon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hmmm... sensitive government info publically available (still 404) on a military website...

    can anyone say "honeypot"?
  • cleaningbykilln, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1makes me wish i still owned a RPG.(just kidding nsa.....i stll own one)
    • stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Dude, you should be a bit more careful about what you say. Not only is it poor taste, but can also provoke a visit from the Secret Service.
    • cleaningbykilln, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a bit more careful about what i say, what i cant own a Real Potato Gun or Robotic Personal Guard.

      and as far as a visit from the secret service,I think they would have came win i bought all that fertilizer and anhydrous hydrazine.
      im glad i live in a country that is not a lot like 1984.....my bad, i do
  • Hieros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The document also shows the location where a terrorist armed with a high-caliber sniper rifle could detonate the tanks that supply oxygen to Air Force One's medical facility."

    WHAT THE *****!!!>!?!!!>!>!!!>1/
  • TheGuruStud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"makes me wish i still owned a RPG.(just kidding nsa.....i stll own one)"

    LOL, you completely read my mind. Now to just figure the actual logistics of this operation...
  • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Perfect Dark for the N64 had a level in which you ran through Air Force One and its amazing how accurate the level is when looking at these maps; I wonder where they got the map from?
    http://perfectdark.detstar.com/solomissions/11airforceone/11airforceone.asp
  • ecb29, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you're interested, I've got a copy of these "revealing" diagrams on my website: http://elliottback.com/wp/archives/2006/04/10/air-force-exposed/
  • levilprivateer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Against Gore in 2000, Bush did _not_ win the popular vote. He won by the technicalities involved with the electoral college. Not only that, but he also did not receive a majority of the votes. Neither candidate received over 50% of the votes. In some democracies, I believe this would constitute a revote."

    Ugh. You know... I'm all for someone else being president right now, but this was old in 2000. The U.S. Constitution provides for a method of presidential election. We follow that method. If the method does not suit you, by all means... petition your representatives to change it. In the meantime, please... stop the bitter. This is a republic with an electoral college, not some silly mob rule democracy.

    Sidenote: I am independent and I vote libertarian, so I get screwed more than the "can win" parties right now. I support reform... but I can hardly call it cheating if the other parties are following the rules.
  • dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Against Gore in 2000, Bush did _not_ win the popular vote. He won by the technicalities involved with the electoral college. Not only that, but he also did not receive a majority of the votes. Neither candidate received over 50% of the votes. In some democracies, I believe this would constitute a revote."

    The process laid out by the constitution is not a "technicality"
  • vroom101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cool aerial view of flare salvos by two USMC KC-130 Hercules aircraft (still photos link via http://weblog.physorg.com/news4634.html ).

    Pics: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-20051111.htm

    Video: http://www.archive.org/details/Herc_Salvo2
    http://www.archive.org/download/Herc_Salvo2/Herc_Salvo2.mpg
    copy also at http://youtube.com/watch?v=_vyXkD8TVUQ

    "Wing Vortices" explanation:
    http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Vortex/TH15.htm
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.