Join 3,417 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Prelude to Terror?
August 29, 2006 7:36 AM   Subscribe

Whistleblower uses YouTube to out key coup co-conspirator, Lockheed Martin, contracted to prepare coast a guard fleet to be easily compromised by...who knows? Terrorists? Is this glaring, bumbling private-sector incompetance, or very competant, efficient planning for a fall back to such an explanation should something occur? Either way, pretty clear who's in cahoots and not a ringing endorsement for the virtues of the private sector. Let's see if some government oversight can do something about it (not holding my breath) now that the whistleblower's statement is on you tube. Washington Post:On YouTube, Charges of Security Flaws
posted by Unregistered User (59 comments total)

 
Uh, what's behind that first tinyURL?
posted by OmieWise at 7:37 AM on August 29, 2006


Ditto. Why the tinyurl? What are you hiding?
posted by caddis at 7:39 AM on August 29, 2006


The tinyURL is a YouTube link via the famous RawStory.
posted by leftoverboy at 7:42 AM on August 29, 2006


"Anybody with a webcam and something to say, regardless of whether it's true or not, can say it on YouTube," she said, adding that [Lockheed Martin] would not ask the site to take the video down.

Brave, poor, stupid guy. He's in for some serious swiftboating.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:42 AM on August 29, 2006


You tube Vid
posted by Unregistered User at 7:42 AM on August 29, 2006


Don't believe it!

(I bet it's tubgirl.)
posted by LordSludge at 7:43 AM on August 29, 2006


The Post doesn't mention any accusations of Lockheed trying to make a coup happen more easily — is that possibly your own interpretation?
posted by gubo at 7:43 AM on August 29, 2006


Whistleblower uses YouTube to out key coup co-conspirator, Lockheed Martin, contracted to prepare coast a guard fleet to be easily compromised by...who knows?

What?
posted by poppo at 7:44 AM on August 29, 2006


This looks like a very effective way to get the message out when others have ignored you. I wonder why he didn't bring a qui tam action? He could have made millions.
posted by caddis at 7:47 AM on August 29, 2006


excelent post for this youtubesday.
posted by delmoi at 7:47 AM on August 29, 2006


Worst use of YouTube ever.

Although it does give me an idea: I'm going to start videotaping my opinions that I would have posted to MetaFilter, and instead posting them as YouTube links. That way, they'll get more attention. Am I right?
posted by smackfu at 7:47 AM on August 29, 2006


The Post doesn't mention any accusations of Lockheed trying to make a coup happen more easily — is that possibly your own interpretation?

Swiftboating. It's safe to say LM is a political entity in spirit, if not name, and that their tactic (as described by the Post) is to discredit the source and sweat out oversight committees.

I just hope the guy survives what's coming.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:48 AM on August 29, 2006


According to this guy, it could be compromised by environmental conditions etc...
posted by Unregistered User at 7:49 AM on August 29, 2006


There's some glaring, bumbling incompetence, but it's in your spelling and sentence structure.
posted by Captaintripps at 7:54 AM on August 29, 2006


coup co-conspirator lol

That said, I hope this gets a proper investigation.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:56 AM on August 29, 2006


Featherbedding and corner-cutting are business as usual in the military-industrial complex. Suggesting that the corners cut here were done intentionally to provide some kind of fallback explanation is quite a stretch, and nothing the guy in the video even hints at.
posted by adamrice at 7:57 AM on August 29, 2006


LordSludge writes "Don't believe it!

"(I bet it's tubgirl.)"


I don't get that irrational fear of tinyurl. It'd be just as easy to post the tubgirl pic up on flickr and rename it. Better yet, you could make a tubgirl, g**tse and lem*nparty montage into a vid, upload it on youtube, and it'd end up with a indecipherable URL, ready to melt the eyes of the unwary.
posted by clevershark at 8:00 AM on August 29, 2006



Although it does give me an idea: I'm going to start videotaping my opinions that I would have posted to MetaFilter, and instead posting them as YouTube links. That way, they'll get more attention. Am I right?


If your MetaFilter posts were an attempt to make public, and correct problems with the government, then yes, you'd be right.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 8:02 AM on August 29, 2006


a tubgirl, g**tse and lem*nparty montage

You need a montage (montage)
Oh it takes a montage (montage)
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 8:03 AM on August 29, 2006


I'm going to start videotaping my opinions that I would have posted to MetaFilter, and instead posting them as YouTube links. That way, they'll get more attention. Am I right?


Yes

posted by caddis at 8:05 AM on August 29, 2006


Whistleblower uses YouTube to out key coup co-conspirator, Lockheed Martin, contracted to prepare coast a guard fleet to be easily compromised by...who knows? Terrorists? Is this glaring, bumbling private-sector incompetance, or very competant, efficient planning for a fall back to such an explanation should something occur? Either way, pretty clear who's in cahoots and not a ringing endorsement for the virtues of the private sector. Let's see if some government oversight can do something about it (not holding my breath) now that the whistleblower's statement is on you tube.

What language is that? What are you saying? I can't make heads or tails of the post.
posted by LarryC at 8:06 AM on August 29, 2006


Suggesting that the corners cut here were done intentionally to provide some kind of fallback explanation is quite a stretch, and nothing the guy in the video even hints at.



If you had read the Washinton Post article you would have seen:

..."Among them, he said, was that the ship's surveillance system had blind spots that exposed crew members to the possibility of attack."
posted by Unregistered User at 8:09 AM on August 29, 2006


Damn, where's that Samuel L. Jackson picture I had? I know it's around here somewhere...
posted by Khalad at 8:10 AM on August 29, 2006


Phew... at least I'm not the only one who can't make heads or tails of what this post is trying to say.
posted by antifuse at 8:13 AM on August 29, 2006


Flagged as noise, due to the tiny url.
posted by knave at 8:13 AM on August 29, 2006


I know that english composition snarks are bad form here, but jeezly "Bob"...I had to read this post several times in order to comprehend its intended message.

*sigh* sorry /snark
posted by sidereal at 8:14 AM on August 29, 2006


UU, I think the story is fascinating - guy finds problems, tells boss, tells congressman, etc. and no one listens and then using modern technology is able to actually tell the world. However, this conspiracy stuff seems a bit much.
posted by caddis at 8:15 AM on August 29, 2006


Mindboggling. I can't believe that there's no effective mechanisms in place, either within LM or the govt. agencies responsible for oversight, to fix these issues. They don't seem hugely insurmountable. I mean what are we talking about? A couple of extra camera systems? Christ on a stick. I guess this is what happens when a company has a monopoly on govt. contracts in the "free market": Greed and incompetence become the handmaidens of terror. I applaud this guy's bravery. At least he won't have blood on his hands when these things turn out to be the chink in the armor. I imagine (although some Google black belt ninja mefi is going to prove other wise) coming out publicly protects him from something happening to him. You know, accidentally on purpose. Anyhow, he definitely needs a good lawyer.
posted by Skygazer at 8:18 AM on August 29, 2006


Unregistered User writes "If you had read the Washinton Post article you would have seen:

"
...'Among them, he said, was that the ship's surveillance system had blind spots that exposed crew members to the possibility of attack.'"

That continues to not support your claims, or to really make much sense. Since you're obviously invested in people getting this guy's message, do you think you could maybe write a more articulate paragraph explaining what all this is supposed to mean and why we know it isn't just the ravings of a disaffected lunatic.
posted by OmieWise at 8:21 AM on August 29, 2006


I'm shocked, shocked that Unregistered User could make an alarmist FPP.

Are you going for the Trifecta of deleted posts?
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:21 AM on August 29, 2006


I turned the video off halfway through because the guy's monotone made me want to start cutting myself like a 12 year old girl. (I don't care if OBL is hiding in a dinghy. WTF color is that fridge? Goldenrod? The Sadr Militia has better set designers.) And the only reason I clicked the link in the first place was because the sentence structure of the post made me want to donate my car to RIF, and band-aids are cheaper.

Both are prime arguments for the continued need for editors, directors, writers, designers, and dancing frogs in top-hats. Thank you.

Love,

Hollywood
posted by turducken at 8:24 AM on August 29, 2006


Tinyurl has no application except where hyperlinks cannot be used. It makes no sense to tinyurl a url just to hide it in an href. Let your little light shine!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:28 AM on August 29, 2006


UU, your posts might be received a little more favorably if your write-up reflected something close to the actual content of the links, instead of hysterical reactionary bullshit like "key coup co-conspirator."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:29 AM on August 29, 2006


really, what the hell
posted by boo_radley at 8:30 AM on August 29, 2006


I got rid of the tinyurl.
posted by mathowie at 8:34 AM on August 29, 2006


This is an interesting story, I read the Washington Post article closely, but the post describing the video and the article here is totally incoherent. Unregistered User, you've been on thin ice for some time here. I have taken a "three strikes and you're out" position with your partisan rant posts and this one is right up there with the previous two deleted posts.

The story is interesting though, and I'll leave this up, but know that when one more of these heavily partisan screeds that bares little resemblance with the linked content gets deleted, so will your account. Your text here would be more at home at Daily Kos, Rawstory, or the Democratic Underground, not here. MetaFilter isn't a tabloid.
posted by mathowie at 8:40 AM on August 29, 2006 [1 favorite]


This may well be interesting, but I'm having a really hard time understanding what UU posted up above.

"...Lockheed Martin, [was] contracted to prepare [a] coast a [sic] guard fleet to be easily compromised by [someone]." Followed by "is this incompetence?" Well, if what you said at first is true, then it would be incompetence only if, I dunno, the guy who wrote the contract wrote "to be easily compromised" instead of "not to be easily compromised". But you figure someone would catch that pretty fast. So if your first sentence is true, your second sentence is so unlikely as to be almost a non-sequitor.

Or did you mean "LM prepares a coast guard fleet that is easily compromised. Was it due to incompetence, or were they contracted to do so?"

You should probably get someone to run through your posts to iron out any incorrect grammar and make sure that you're communicating what you're trying to communicate.
posted by Bugbread at 8:45 AM on August 29, 2006


Forgive the guy's monotone, he's trying pretty hard.

He's rightfully aggravated with how this is being handled by the federal government, but from a technical standpoint, these concerns aren't life threatening. The problems with cable shielding and camera field-of-view should be addressed, but we aren't talking about bad welds and structural problems that will cause these boats to sink.

This use of YouTube is (r)evolutionary and neat, but these 'flaws' don't seem to be of any imminent concern.
posted by thebigdeadwaltz at 8:47 AM on August 29, 2006


I'm with Caddis. This is quite fascinating and I'm eager to find out what happens next.
posted by dobbs at 8:55 AM on August 29, 2006


What is this incoherent blob of text? I've tried several times to parse it and through some failing of my own I simply can't extract meaning from it. Was someone else successful at comprehending the posted text? If so, could you perhaps paraphrase in English, please?
posted by majick at 9:00 AM on August 29, 2006


Good story, terrible post. UU fouled this one off, but I get the feeling his next post is going to be a swing and a miss.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:02 AM on August 29, 2006


I admire this guy's perseverance, but I wish his presentation could have been organised better. For example, I had no idea what he was going to be talking about. He should have said something to the effect of, "I have 3 serious issues regarding Coast Guard safety and Lockheed Martin." And then list them, and then describe them.
posted by maxpower at 9:03 AM on August 29, 2006


Perhaps he should have used PowerPoint?

*ducks
posted by caddis at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2006


this is interesting, thanks
posted by matteo at 9:43 AM on August 29, 2006


The link is interesting, and rather than rehash the comments about the posts language, I'll note that absolutely nothing here supports the notion of a coup. Do you know what coup means?

Are you suggesting that there's going to be an attack and that lockheed is in on it? Who else is the co-conspirator? Or are you saying there's a coup d'etat afoot, in the DailyKos Cheney-did-911 sense of the phrase?
posted by Pastabagel at 10:30 AM on August 29, 2006


Are you suggesting that there's going to be an attack

No, but the people who brought you 'nukes in Houston' are now brining you Big Apple Bake in Oct. So there is your suggestion.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:42 AM on August 29, 2006


Just remember, it was the government that nuked Houston.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:01 AM on August 29, 2006


...this is what happens when a company has a monopoly on govt. contracts...
Right. Boeing and Raytheon and BAE and Northrup and GD and Halliburton, et al. don't even exist because Lockheed has squashed every last one of them.

This is a total non-story. A disgruntled ex-employee bitches about a company under the guise of being the Last Honest Man on Earth. After only a month on the project, he uncovers "serious flaws". He takes his concerns to project management; they review them and either reject them or take some action De Kort considers insufficient. He then goes to government investigators and calls congressmen, all of whom reject his theories. He's probably a world-class PITA, so Lockheed transfers him to another project so he can't hamstring Deepwater by his obsession with its supposed faults. Soon after, he's informed that he's being laid off. (I know people at Lockheed. They say the company will give employees a grace period to find employment within the company before laying them off.) A few days before his termination date, he posts this video to make it look like he was laid off in retaliation for his courage in bringing the evildoers to account.

Look at the variety of faults he claims to have uncovered: he'd have to be an expert in fields like communications theory, cryptology, antenna theory, and reliability to make qualified judgments on the disparate problems he lists. Companies don't lay off people like that -- they make them senior members of the technical staff.
posted by forrest at 11:26 AM on August 29, 2006


>>>>>>...this is what happens when a company has a monopoly on govt. contracts...

Right. Boeing and Raytheon and BAE and Northrup and GD and Halliburton, et al. don't even exist because Lockheed has squashed every last one of them.


Dude. You are missing the point. The point is that the Military Industrial Complex has a monopoly on government contracts. That's what is wrong, man. When is the last time you saw Greenpeace or Human Rights Watch get a sweetheart defense contract?
posted by dios at 11:44 AM on August 29, 2006


Yeah, I don't see what the big deal is - a couple of blindspots in a CG patrol vessel? These boats aren't like fixed points on a fixed plane, a Maginot line - they are moving and swivelling on a moving ocean - the whole 360 would be covered repeatedly. No wonder everyone's blowing him off and firing him.

He could at least should have practiced his speech a few times - it's basic 6th grade public speaking. Or could he hear the black helicopters approaching, did he think he had no time?
And that fridge is avacado, not goldenrod.
posted by Flashman at 12:24 PM on August 29, 2006


This guys is clearly at that point in his job where he's being criticized by his boss for something, but he's in denial about it and instead adopts the I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else approach to deal with it.

YouTube is an ever-growing repository of cautionary tales.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:53 PM on August 29, 2006


I think this should have been the FPP text:
As of late yesterday, his video had been viewed more than 8,000 times. That is low by YouTube standards, where a 42-second clip of a cat on a wheel received more than 800,000 views.
posted by heydanno at 1:38 PM on August 29, 2006


Do you have the link to that cat video?
posted by LarryC at 2:50 PM on August 29, 2006


Meow
posted by knave at 3:07 PM on August 29, 2006


Whether he’s right about the current problems or not, I’d still core out a cutter and refit it if I was going to put it in harms way. But then, I’m a complete jerk when it comes to my equipment. Otherwise those are tough, well designed boats. Unless there have been radical design changes (I don’t think adding 10 or so feet to them is going to change much) cutters are fantastic. Prosecutor on the back, stern launch ramp for boarding at high speed, M242 auto-cannon (with the Mk 88 machine gun mount), twin .50 cals, almost two thousand nautical mile range and the bitch is born to run (gives me a hard-on just thinking about it). It’s like complaining that the mirrors on your Mercedes aren’t engineered properly and things appear closer than they actually are. At some point you have to bite the bullet and make the “one size fits all” concessions to the variety of missions the CG does. If they’re going to be mission dedicated (and there are multiple hull variations) let the CG requisition the parts and chop out the boat at their end if there are any problems. It’s the same damned cash pool.

I don’t know the Homeland security IG. And obviously any misappropriation of tax dollars should be looked into. But if the CG is saying they are safe...I mean it’s their neck.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:42 PM on August 29, 2006


When is the last time you saw Greenpeace or Human Rights Watch get a sweetheart defense contract?
I don't know -- when was the last time you ever saw them bid on one?
posted by forrest at 4:26 PM on August 29, 2006


Yeah, I don't see what the big deal is - a couple of blindspots in a CG patrol vessel? These boats aren't like fixed points on a fixed plane ...

Did you listen to the video? The Coast Guard requested a camera installation that would allow them to remotely monitor the boat while it's sitting still in a dock.
posted by odinsdream at 4:43 PM on August 29, 2006


Ouch! There's a spell checker available, why don't you use it? Then clean up the grammar, please.
posted by RussHy at 5:08 PM on August 29, 2006


So is YouTube the new Flickr in tersm of self-importance?
posted by Artw at 6:28 PM on August 29, 2006


« Older Design Times Square: The Urban Forest Project...  |  Warren Ellis quoting someone e... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments