# Google Earth does ships?



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

Sam Ignarski in his FOB Network website has many interesting articles for mariners, but this one today has to be one of the most fascinating. Perhaps even scary, so had to pass it on. 
Inevitable that satellites would be used to monitor ships, but tying them to AIS transmissions is very smart. Typically Google?

"News from the frontiers of information. With two cheap satelittes, google is mapping the ships at sea using AIS 
Courtesy of the OceanusLive newsletter we learn that two men have been developing two low earth orbit satellites for mapping 70 percent of the global maritime activity encompassing 200,000 ships a day. Google can watch them, but the navies of the world cannot. See Google´s Chief Technology Officer, Michael Jones explain during a keynote speech on YouTube/USNI videoRE via Information Dissemination. "It´s crazy, or somewhat lamentable..." Go to minute 23 to 31 for the Google Earth view at:-

http://tinyurl.com/brcnulq

When I retired from full-time work 10 years ago vessels were still being outfitted with AIS to meet the IMO implementaion schedule which only commenced in 2002. This Google development is a giant leap forward in a relatively short time.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

One of the promises of AIS was that it could look beyond a radar target and would thus be a great boon to the navigating fraternity (and those who depend upon them not to steer into danger).

Were Capt. Smith to have had radar (and, another small problem, if it had been good at detecting ice) what help would there have been in knowing what was on the other side of the iceberg?

Typical of CIRM (the manufacturer's lobby group) they ran along to IMO saying "look what we have made - please make it compulsory so that we can make some more money out of the shipowner and ignore where the industry wants to lead us". As always this is what IMO did.

Within a very short time warnings on the inadvisability on reliance on AIS were published and all of a sudden ALL port states started referring to AIS as an aid to security. By definition it cannot be this as it was mandated in Ch V. not Ch X1-2!

To what Chapter will AIS now sneak now that the original excuse for mandating it and its scoundrels' refuge have both been found wanting?

Why not bar its use?

LRIT, a variant of which shipowners have been using for many years for their fleet displays can be used. It is a little more secure. But not much.

David V


----------



## callpor (Jan 31, 2007)

On the same subject, an interesting article in GCaptain.com today. Take a look at:-

http://gcaptain.com/google-ship-tracking-dod-dhs-misses-the-point/?48311


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

An enormous amount of computing 'stuff' has been done for LRIT - not the efficacy of Standard C polling and DNIDs but around the transfer of the airtime charges between flag states and littoral authorities.

Standard C software was indeed updated as well. This had little to do with reliability as claimed (owners had been using the system for years Polestar being one such excellent supplier and one that several Flags went to for their LRIT systems). The latest software was mandated (in effect if not in so many words) so that the the absolute minimum of airtime cost would be incurred by the authorities. The Conformance test was designed to prove this. Had not IMO stuck out to get the cupfull of cream as well as the churnfull of milk introduction of LRIT could have been cost free to owners as it was most Sat Cs did not comply (none of 'mine' did) net cost - one Satcom C not to mention the administration swirl around the conformance testing.

As to whether the US has better intelligence from pre-existing sources (or conceivably from satellite AIS observation) we are not likely to get to know for sure. It is a little strange that the federal seascouts were so insistent on riding rough shod over IMO to get LRIT introduced if it was simply to be an additional tracking facility. But who knows what the grey fleet has that the white fleet is not allowed to access?


----------

