US Wary of Allowing Russian Electronic Monitoring Stations Inside US 232
cold fjord writes "The New York Times reports, '... the next potential threat from Russia may not come from a nefarious cyberweapon or secrets gleaned from Snowden. Instead, this menace may come in the form of a ... dome-topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in the United States. ... the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have been quietly waging a campaign to stop the State Department from allowing ... the Russian space agency, to build about half a dozen ... monitor stations, on United States soil ... These monitor stations, the Russians contend, would significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of Moscow's version of the Global Positioning System ... The Russian effort is part of a larger global race by several countries ... to perfect their own global positioning systems and challenge the dominance of the American GPS. For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration's relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin ... But the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give the Russians a foothold on American territory that would sharpen the accuracy of Moscow's satellite-steered weapons. The stations, they believe, could also give the Russians an opening to snoop on the United States within its borders. ... administration officials have delayed a final decision until the Russians provide more information and until the American agencies sort out their differences.'"
Doomsday device! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doomsday device! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Now here is the scary part: Dr Strangelove is still as relevant as it was when it was made. You would think by now it would just be funny, and not scarily funny.
Re:Doomsday device! (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is in charge of the US with respect to these things?
Are we allowed to put these same type of things on Russian soil too?
Re:Doomsday device! (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe this is being seriously considred..?!?!
WTF is in charge of the US with respect to these things?
Are we allowed to put these same type of things on Russian soil too?
The US has the same types of facilities [wikipedia.org] in lots of different places, but not in Russia.
The flight paths of the satellites are tracked by dedicated U.S. Air Force monitoring stations in Hawaii, Kwajalein Atoll, Ascension Island, Diego Garcia, Colorado Springs, Colorado and Cape Canaveral, along with shared NGA monitor stations operated in England, Argentina, Ecuador, Bahrain, Australia and Washington DC
These stations provide correction to the satellites, (internal clocks and ephemeris data) as each passes overhead, and thereby improves the accuracy.
Having them on US Soil isn't as bad as you might think. It subjects them to US control, Monitoring, and even taking them down should the situation warrant. It also makes GLONASS more useful/accurate in the US. (Many mobile phones can use GLONASS today). No way would the Russian's be allowed to put up a black-box installation. We would insist on knowing everything about what is going on in there).
If you have a cold war outlook on Russia, just remember the old adage of keeping your Friends close and your Enemies closer.
It seems unnecessary if you ask me. But then Russia doesn't have that many friends or wide spread bases for this type of installation in the western hemisphere these days. Cuba, and maybe one or two central american countries might be willing.
It also seems odd, that the CIA would let Obama would hand this to the Russians just to prop up his image. They probably have enough goods on him to prevent it. I doubt the American people would stand for it anyway, and Obama would be forced to tuck tail and run away from it.
Slashdot Summaries, by William Shatner (Score:2, Funny)
Somewhere in the United States (dramatic pause)
the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon (dramatic pause)
have been quietly waging a campaign (dramatic pause)
to stop the State Department from allowing (dramatic pause)
I can't be the only person who is getting this out of the overuse of ... in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, in Esperanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvoAA2Xgig [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You very may well be the only person to misinterpret the standard "I skipped a bit" indicator in quoted text.
Re: (Score:2)
"I skipped a bit" = (...) ...
Pause =
Re: (Score:2)
Only on the Internet. That usage has never been standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of pauses, recognize them for what they are: markers to show where sections of text were omitted for brevity or clarity.
So what is Shatner omitting? Inquisitive minds want to know!
Re:Slashdot Summaries, by William Shatner (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more conventionally done with [...] rather than ... alone, which has the more usual meaning of a pause.
Ellipsis mayhem (Score:5, Funny)
... If... you use an Ellipsis... frequently and... hastily people will think... you are William Shatner...
KAHN!
Re: (Score:2)
Why would William Shatner be calling for Madeline Kahn?
Easily dealt with. (Score:5, Insightful)
"But the C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give the Russians a foothold on American territory that would sharpen the accuracy of Moscow's satellite-steered weapons"
Begging the question "aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?
The smart countermeasure would be to monitor the monitoring stations and be ready to destroy them at no notice. Have both HERF/jamming and explosive capability available.
Re:Easily dealt with. (Score:5, Interesting)
Begging the question "aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?
Depends on the application and the size of the nuke. One of the reasons that Soviet missiles and warheads were so big was because thy lacked accuracy. Against a hardened target that can be important even for a nuke. More accurate nukes can be smaller. Smaller nukes let your missiles carry more of them, and they can be fitted on smaller missiles.
The smart countermeasure would be to monitor the monitoring stations and be ready to destroy them at no notice.
If a nuclear strike is launched the system would only really need to provide high accuracy for about 30 minutes. I doubt there is enough drift in that time to make blowing the stations worthwhile. (And who would want to be on the demo team that had a 15 minute notice, at most, for blowing up the station on order, 24x7x365?) If you still wanted to blow up the stations in the event of an attack, you would probably have to do it within 10 minutes of the alert to make it worthwhile. If it turns out the alert was a false one and you blew up the stations, and no doubt killed the Russian operators, the Russians would be very cranky. It might even start a real war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it likely that the Russians or whomever could turn on a homing beacon wherever they plan to launch missles. This beacon could have been set up decades ago in a residential area and be all readly to go at the flip of a switch. There is no way the US could detect this and shut it down within a 30 minute time frame. The Russians could even have 5-10 in high value target areas like DC or NYC. That's what I would have put in place well before GPS was available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Begging the question "aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?
Depends on the application and the size of the nuke. One of the reasons that Soviet missiles and warheads were so big was because thy lacked accuracy. Against a hardened target that can be important even for a nuke. More accurate nukes can be smaller. Smaller nukes let your missiles carry more of them, and they can be fitted on smaller missiles.
Unfortunately for your argument, both S.A.L.T. and S.T.A.R.T. sought to limit deployment of MIRV'ed ICBMs because the Soviets had more of them than the U.S..
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume nuke? IT could be a conventional weapon fired from sea.
And yes, current nukes are accurate enough. Anything small enough to warrant this would be conventional.
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes the entire argument even more idiotic. By the time we got into a shooting war with Russia and they were launching conventional weapons inside US territory, do you really think ANY of our GPS satellites, Russian or otherwise, would still be in orbit? To work at all the damned things have to continuously broadcast their position to the world. They're about the easiest thing to shoot down you could conceive of.
Re: (Score:2)
The smart countermeasure would be to monitor the monitoring stations and be ready to destroy them at no notice.
I think I'd rather build the system to postpone the destruction until it receives some kind of notice.
Otherwise the "smart countermeasure" is "lit dynamite".
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are as powerful as they are because it was originally quite difficult to aim them. You could point them at a city but they might actually land miles away, which is no big deal if you're devastating a multi-mile area.
Nukes are very messy though! Wouldn't it be so much more fun to be able to launch hellfire-equivalent munitions from space? All you really need to do to achieve that is make sure you can hit your target.
The better your aim is, the smaller the projectile can be. Wouldn't it be cool to assas
Re: (Score:2)
Nukes are as powerful as they are because generals like big booms.
Re: (Score:3)
"aren't current nukes sufficiently accurate"?
This is pretty much a non-issue for ballistic missiles, since they rely on inertial nav. If nothing else the ionization during re-entry prevents reception of radio signals. GPS may also not have sufficient dynamic capability (there's a tradeoff between how rapid GPS position updates are and how accurate they are). Maybe GPS would have some value in allowing ballistic missile subs to re-cal their inertial nav at sea, but that's about it.
Using GPS/GLONASS for more conventional weapons (e.g. cruise missiles, P
Re: (Score:2)
No, the USSR has changed over to nano-nukes, that require a 10 foot precision. Each missile now has instead 5 megaton rated warheads, 80,000-390,000 pound rated nano-warheads. when deployed they seek out every person and blows them up individually.
Re: (Score:2)
Many nuclear weapons are targeted against known "threat" nuclear weapons, which are, in turn, located in armored bunkers. Precise targeting is essential, as a near miss is akin to throwing a hand grenade at the wrong part of a tank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To deter the threat of nuclear war, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
The bunkers make a second strike more credible, and thus deter the first strike. If the enemy knows that retaliation is inevitable, even with a preemptory strike at, say, the white house and pentagon--he won't strike first.
SSBNs are a terribly expensive solution to the problem. They can also be followed by attack submarines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Israelis will simply annex all the land your spying on whilst your busy watching the Russians
So Israel will annex Russia?
Allow it! (Score:2, Interesting)
We need the jobs assholes!
Our economy is in shambles and these morons are worried about the Russians listening in - on what? Talk Radio?!
Police chatter?
The US does not have any stations in Russia (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That they acknowledge. Pretty big caveat there. I mean, if they are operating black site torture rendition sites there, why would you believe they aren't doing other things there? Why would you trust anything they say?
Many smartphones use both Glonass and US GPS (Score:5, Informative)
One interesting thing I learned from the article is that many (?most) current smartphones use both Glonass and the US GPS system for position fixes.
One motivation for this is the Russian requirement which heavily taxes devices which don't support Glonass. Apparently the iPhone 4S started support and many others also added support.
I guess it's good to have two systems (with a possible third with the EU system). This can provide redundancy and improve reliability. Of course these are useful tools for warfare which is why we have several systems ("We've always been at war with Eastasia").
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Allegedly, my VZW Droid 4 can grok Glonass.
I have no idea if it actually works -- if there's an app for that, I haven't seen it.
I quite often use GPS on the phone and would love redundancy and/or any additional data for accuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an app for that:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chartcross.gpstest&hl=en [google.com]
Also found this: .42) use GLONASS all the time according to GPS TEST. It always show me satellites between 65 and 88."
"As far as I know GLONASS is transparent accessible for any application through the android gps-api. So no need for special treadment of GLONASS for the applications.
My xperia active (firmware
Re:Many smartphones use both Glonass and US GPS (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. Allegedly, my VZW Droid 4 can grok Glonass.
I have no idea if it actually works -- if there's an app for that, I haven't seen it.
This one can differentiate between Navstar (GPS's actual name, it is only a GPS)
and GLONASS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.eclipsim.gpsstatus2 [google.com]
Round sats in the status display are Navstar, square ones (satellite numbers 80+) are GLONASS.
Note that most GLONASS-capable phones will only switch it on if Navstar reception alone is weak
and/or unreliable, because it involves additional cirquitry and therefore reduces battery life. So if you
have excellent reception, you might not see any "squares" even with GLONASS-capable hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are mostly correct, but it wasn't the iPhone 4S that started support. The Galaxy SII Plus had it years before, but you can't credit Samsung either. It was simply a case of GPS system-on-chip manufacturers starting to offer it in their high end mobile models. The phone doesn't even know it's there, the output from the module looks exactly the same as it would if only using GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mostly correct, but it wasn't the iPhone 4S that started support. The Galaxy SII Plus had it years before
Well, months before, considering they came out the same year.
you can't credit Samsung either. It was simply a case of GPS system-on-chip manufacturers starting to offer it in their high end mobile models.
No, but you can specifically "credit" the Russian government. At the end of 2010, Russia announced that starting in 2011 any GPS capable device that was not compatible with GLONASS would be subject to a 25% import duty. Amazingly, from 2011 on, basically all (major brand) smartphones have included GLONASS.
If we're not doing anything wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, the Russians want to monitor stuff inside the US borders. Ok, so what?
To flip what we've heard from the NSA around, "If we're not doing anything wrong, we don't have to worry."
In point of fact, letting the Russians monitor internal military chatter sounds like a good idea to me. That way, they -know- we aren't planning on attacking them. And.. by the way, we -aren't- planning on attacking the Russians, are we? If we are, _I_ would like to know about it, forget what the Russians know.
The days of Red Baiting should be over. We should have an open society, and if the Russians want to eavesdrop, more power to them. Truthfully, I'm a lot more worried about what our own government wants to keep track of than I am about what any Russians (or Chinese) want to track. And if it improves the accuracy of their weapons, does that mean that they're more likely to blow up a military base than the local YMCA? That's good, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of an old Eisenhower idea:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1878 [af.mil]
Re:If we're not doing anything wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
"we -aren't- planning on attacking the Russians, are we?"
Of course we are. Just like we have plans for 100's of military moves. Whether or not we implement those plans is another question.
"The days of Red Baiting should be over"
Putin is doing his best to bring it back. His moves really seem to be to bring back a single power* and muscle his way around. He's entrenching a theocracy, arresting minor dissenter, and undoing all the democratic gain over the last 30 years. His moving to control certain oil interests
errr. I didn't' want to imply it was the same single power, just a centralized power.
Re: (Score:2)
"The days of Red Baiting should be over"
Putin is doing his best to bring it back.
Except Putin is only targeting the red states.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? [csmonitor.com] I wouldn't be too sure.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, if we were actually going to attack the Russians (or anyone else) there would be a lot of chatter between stations, a lot of evidence of setting up the logistics of such an attack. Plans, per se, don't bother me, as you point out, we play those games every day, as do the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Brits. I'm not sure what the French do.
If we were about to realize a plan to attack Russia, there would be ample evidence of doing so. If we're not about to attack Russia, there ought to b
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, if we were actually going to attack the Russians (or anyone else) there would be a lot of chatter between stations,
Why? Certainly not radio chatter. Why would there be? Anything within CONUS is connected by wire. It's only extra-CONUS comms that might need some kind of radio link.
Let them listen.
Why, so they can gather more data to use to determine our encryption and CCC techniques?
The most critical point in this whole discussion is that were the Russians trying to spy, they'd do so in a spy-like fashion. They'd buy a house where they wanted antennas using a dummy purchaser and install whatever they wanted. I'd be willing to bet th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes; though we do not know this is action or reaction; I suspect the latter.
Of course, China will win.
Re: (Score:2)
... And if it improves the accuracy of their weapons, does that mean that they're more likely to blow up a military base than the local YMCA? That's good, isn't it?
Except the Pentagon & CIA would rather have the weapons hit the YMCA instead of the Military Base since the military does the fighting and the YMCA only has civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
From looking at the map, it looks like most of the GPS monitoring stations are on US Military bases anyway, so there's no need for a front. Everybody knows we're collecting any signals we can pick up.
It looks like Russia is trying to put theirs in corn fields in the middle of the US.
incredibly easy solution (Score:2)
Counter-offer with a bi-lateral agreement, allowing us to put as many monitoring stations in Russia ;-)
What's the big deal? (Score:3)
What's the big deal? The Russians have had a monitoring station in the US for decades. Specifically, there's a spot in the middle of the US that has line-of-sight to all satellites that carry phone calls in/out of the US. And there are three trailers there, one run by the NSA (remember, it was clearly illegal until quite recently, for the US to tapping all calls into and out of the US, which is what they've been doing for decades, though a shell corporation), one that operates for the Russians, and the third a private US corporation that captures and sells data as a business. I've been told (can't say by who) that they know about each other, and aren't even located far from each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama should put this off for now (Score:2)
He'll have more flexibility after the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
For the State Department... (Score:2)
permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration's relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin
Why is this necessary? I thought giving Russia a red plastic button who's meaning was lost in translation was all that was necessary. Hillary Clinton's skills at international relations were all that was necessary to improve relations. Right?
http://www.eurodialogue.org/osce/The-Reset-At-One-Year-The-View-From-Moscow
Something new from cold fjord (Score:4, Insightful)
Something new from cold fjord - a story/concern that most Slashdotters agree with. Cold (if I may presume to use your first name), I think this demonstrates that most Slashdotters are not naive fools who think we live in a completely friendly world. Rather, if I may speak for most others, we think many of the tactics used in fighting terrorism are overly intrusive (and sometimes downright un-Constitutional), dangerous to our freedom, and either marginally or completely ineffective. For example, 9/11 could have been prevented with old-fashioned police work. For example, FBI headquarters listening to a report from a field office, which in turn they were given by an astute flight instructor, of some gentlemen who wanted to learn to fly but didn't care about takeoffs and landings (at least not of the preferred variety).
paranoia (Score:2)
You know it increases my paranoia, like looking in the rearview mirror and seeing a police car.
(At my advanced age, not cutting my hair doesn't really achieve much).
Or, perhaps, "The paranoia is strong in this one."
I don't understand why they need permission (Score:2)
Why not just buy some land in rural areas, construct a barn looking thing as a decoy (out of a material that's transparent to the instruments within), ship redundant parts across several ports and assemble under the cover of darkness. Difficult and expensive to do without being detected? Maybe, but surely within the realm of possibility for the Russian government...
Re: (Score:3)
It could even be a for-profit company run by American staff, charging the Russian
government for the data. Broadcasting needs a license, but I don't see how a
reception-only monitoring of signals on private ground run by a private company
would need any kind of official permission.
Receiving signals within some US government-run frequency bands might be
illegal (I didn't find any examples with a quick search though), but GLONASS
signals don't rea
Fire all the old cold-war dudes. (Score:2)
>> The C.I.A. and other American spy agencies, as well as the Pentagon, suspect that the monitor stations would give the Russians a foothold on American territory that would sharpen the accuracy of Moscow's satellite-steered weapons.
This just seems to emphasise how many old dudes still doing outdated cold-war era thinking there are in the US government/military. Call me strange but I think Russia is probably near the bottom of the threat list of organisations that would militarily attack the US homela
Re: (Score:2)
Why does GLONASS even need permission? (Score:2)
I'm surprised the GLONASS people even need permission. A monitoring station is just a fixed GLONASS receiver with a data connection. It receives position information and transmits it back to HQ, where a map of corrections for atmospheric effects is constructed [sdcm.ru] and corrections are sent out via the satellites. Since when do you need permission for a receiver?
The iPhone 4S and later models use GLONASS and GPS together to improve accuracy. So ad-targeting needs this correction system in place so Apple knows
Re: (Score:2)
WTF! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think I read in the NY Times that the US does not have any GPS ground stations in Russia. If we did, it would be a hard thing to say no to.
Re:... w ... t ... f ... (Score:5, Informative)
No it doesn't. If you bother to read the story it states, "The United States has stations around the world, but none in Russia."
Re:... w ... t ... f ... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the US ground station map. http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/control/ [gps.gov] Nothing in Russia.
Can't the Russians just put theirs in Cuba?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they need something further north. Try Canada - let's see what their NORAD people think.
Re: (Score:2)
They could but it would not be as accurate in the US. Yea I do not see any need for this. They could just send us the equipment and the US could send the corrections to them. I am sure Raytheon would be glad to do it for a fee.
Yea and as far as repairing relations with Putian? Ahhh no.
Re:... w ... t ... f ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Link, please? (Score:2)
Casual web search just turns up articles about the new stations in the US.
If we don't already have equivalent stations in Russia, we could offer them a trade. They get theirs when we get ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, what does GPS need ground stations for? Homing beacons?
The State Department position reminds me of Keith Laumer's Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne. I suppose that was art imitating life, so no surprise that the next
Re: (Score:2)
for adjustment. you know, to go from 5 meters to 1, like it mattered for the kind of bombs they're afraid of.
I'd be really surprised if they didn't have one in their embassy in Moscow.
Re: (Score:2)
Only difference is that we have no Retief...
Re:... w ... t ... f ... (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, what does GPS need ground stations for?
You need ground stations for SBAS (WAAS [wikipedia.org] is the GPS SBAS, not sure whether GLONASS currently has an equivalent and if so what it's called); there main function is to measure ionospheric delay characteristics, process the results, and upload it to the satellites so GPS/GLONASS devices with SBAS capability can receive it and use it to refine their position estimates.
Re: (Score:3)
But only countries like Russia and China spy on people and hack. American agencies would never ever do that.
^Mod down! (Score:2)
an AC **invents a statistic out of thin air** and it get's a +1 Informative
if Russia doesn't have these GPS substations for the US why the hell are we even considering it?
Russia isn't a 'communist' country threating us with their liberal communal ideas, atheism, and free love
Russia is a giant chunk of resources controlled by Oligarchs fighting like Dukes for control of a water source
Russian people are just like us
The concept that totalitarian regimes equate to 'communism' in the philosophical sense is one o
Re: (Score:2)
Because Obama has damage credibility. Therefore, he's looking to make a concession to the Russians in order to improve his standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This was my reaction too. Allow you to monitor and refine your version of GPS so you can more easily and accurately target their weapons which may be pointed in my direction? Um.. No, not in my back yard. Also, I would fear that these systems would be used to collect intelligence. So, no again.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the national "get off my lawn" anthem.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the national "get off my lawn" anthem.
Both sides can sing the same tune any time they like. Seems fair to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I always praised cooperation over competition. But hey, whatever rocks your boat, man.
Re: (Score:2)
Charge them a tidy sum for rent and require they contract physical security to the CIA/NSA/NRO. Why not in that case?
Re: (Score:2)
After all, that's what America would do if the situation were reversed ....
Absolutely. You can't blame the Russians for trying .... and you can't blame the Americans for saying "no".
Re: (Score:2)
...and you can't blame the Americans for saying "no".
You certainly can't. I find it somewhat telling that the US is so eager to raise concern over this. It's as if they're saying, "we can't let them build those stations here, it will make it so easy for them to spy - and you can trust us because we already know how easy it is!"
Re: (Score:2)
it raises an interesting question about US outposts abroad to admit to that, doesn't it?
No. The US can put GPS stations anywhere in the world where the host country is amenable. So can Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
The ground stations (control and monitoring) don't need to be directly underneath the satellites.
Effective operation only needs line of sight from time to time to upload minor correction data.
Failing to upload the minor corrections may mean accuracy goes from a 2 meter circle to a 100 meter circle*. I don't know about you, but I don't think a nuke going off 300 feet away vs 6 feet away is going to be significantly more survivable.
*These are totally bullshit numbers, fabricated for the benefit of discussion
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I don't think a nuke going off 300 feet away vs 6 feet away is going to be significantly more survivable.
Yes, but when your autonomous vehicle parks in your neighbor's garage instead of yours, and he's a jealous 320' linebacker who already thinks you are messing around with his wife, you'll probably be wishing for that 6 foot accuracy vs. 100 yards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More relevantly - what legally prevents them from doing so, and why would the state department have any influence?
The state department cannot simply prohibit stuff that is legal, in general.
What prevents them from sticking 5 RF receivers in each of the russian consulates.
Or indeed, paying for a couple of dozen boxes on roofs in the USA hooked to an internet connection.
The equipment needed is approximately the size of a small suitcase, requiring only a few tens of watts of power.
Re:Why did they ask? (Score:5, Interesting)
What prevents them from sticking 5 RF receivers in each of the russian consulates. Or indeed, paying for a couple of dozen boxes on roofs in the USA hooked to an internet connection.
Roofs (and even buildings, for that matter) are much too wobbly for reference-precision GPS
signal calibration. Stations like this are directly anchored to bedrock, preferably with minimal
seismic activity (that includes even not-so-nearby roads) and with a full-sky view.
I doubt that any of the official russian presences satisfies those constraints.
Note that I'm not saying clandestine (or rather "undeclared" - I don't see how anyone would need
permission to run a non-broadcasting monitoring station on private ground) are impossible or don't
exist, just that urban locations and building roofs wont work.