What's the Government /Really/ Classifying? 68
Nachtjäger writes "The Federation of American Scientists has an entire section of their site devoted to US Government secrets, including the lately hyped Echelon stuff. " Interesting project - it's an interesting chronicle of the declassification of massive amounts of papers.
Secrets (Score:3)
for a copy of the crime bill about to be voted on.
Their reply? "We wish we had a copy too".
This was 2 days before it was to be voted on.
Echelon stuff (Score:3)
Pretty entertaining stuff.. Neat site.
---
Stuff on Pinochet (Score:1)
He may be in his 80s and ill, but Spain is definitely right to demand his extradition from Britain. I just wonder how much will come out on CIA involvement if he does come to trial.
Is this enough to get the Echelon system working?
Disclosure? Hah! (Score:1)
But do any of you people really think this will be a) exhaustive and b) correct?
One thing that strikes me as a common factor of government is it never likes being shown to have made mistakes or have done "the wrong thing".
I'll bet a pound to a penny there's nothing of interest in here. Any controversy will have either have been reclassified as "top secret", or will have been mangled shortly after mistakes have been made. Or maybe that line of investigation is now very much non-PC.
Think about it - even in Tech support, if you have stuffed some machine badly & will catch hell for it, how many of you have ever re-touched logfiles, or incorrectly blamed users? I'm not accusing anyone of gross incompetency or lack of professionalism, but if you can say you've never made a schoolboy mistake, then you've probably never learnt anything anyway. And in that case, if there's an easy way out ("Oh, that's NT's fault"), you will be tempted to take it.
Do you really expect governments to work differently?
Guess that'll get me nixed if Echelon's listening!
FAS has as spy satellite section too (Score:1)
Start using encryption NOW (Score:4)
Now why is it that there's this big fuss about Echelon in the US and here in Europe nobody seems to give a rats ass (or even know it exists). I think us Europeans can learn something from our American friends here: political activism about these things is imortant/essential. I really wish us Europeans would have the political tradition of writing/complaining to your congressmen about things you don't like. As far as I can tell, Europeans are more complacent when it comes to interacting with their chosen representatives
Re:Stuff on Pinochet (Score:1)
So where's that Crypto how-to? (Score:1)
Something that covers distributed file systems, encryption technologies, an overview of security concepts (ports, daemons, keeping up with patches) and instructions for popular encryption packages.
Pointless Secrets (Score:4)
As a Marylander, I have several friends who work (or worked) for federal agency sub-contractors. Most of the random projects done by "the government" are doled out to Beltway Bandits (this is the actual term used) like them. At the usual cookouts they would often trade tales about classifying documents.
As far as my friends could tell, the most common reason their companies would make an official Secret is so that the low-ranking bureaucrats in charge of their funding would be unable to read exactly how little work had been accomplished. And obviously all this Classified work must be much more important than some public project that any commie or Iraqi could read about in the paper... In other words, 100% pure Dilberting.
I asked for a copy of the crime bill about to be voted on. Their reply? "We wish we had a copy too".Cute, but I'm sure that bill was never classified, it just wasn't available to anyone outside "the Committee". That's all about stupid congressional politicking (is there any other kind?). More of an Open Source issue, really.
Just a thought (Score:1)
understand? My ignorance of encryption is
boundless, but, that would seem to be a way to
fight unwanted communication.
Re:Just a thought (Score:2)
Re:Stuff on Pinochet (Score:2)
My question is always did he die from being tortured or something? Or even more sinister, was he set free and told "lay low for the rest of your life." Both scenarios seem realistic to me.
Re:So where's that Crypto how-to? (Score:1)
"We hope you find fun and laughter in the new millenium" - Top half of fastfood gamepiece
This seemed more paranoid than useful (Score:4)
If you were actually able to see what's there, you'd probably find laundry lists, chinese take-away receipts, autoexec.bat files, Doctor Who short stories, even restroom graffiti.
Let's be honest, here. The US Government has far fewer REAL secrets than it wants people to believe. It's showmanship, pure and simple. What is said about guys with bigger cars is just as true for guys with bigger vaults of secrets.
Yes, I'm not underestimating the level of real paranoia on the Government's side. They're just as susceptable to that as everyone else - perhaps more so, given their jobs. They probably are hiding things of importance. But so what? Does it really matter if they're scared witless of their own shadows? Does it -really- matter, in the overall scheme of things? Not really. They're only significant because we choose to make them so.
As for Echelon - I believe it's real, but there's no way in hell it's keyword-driven. Check EVERY word in EVERY message on ALL national and international lines in 52 countries? I don't care HOW fast a computer they have - that's TOO SLOW and would yield FAR too many false positives, and FAR too many false negatives. Neural Nets and GA's are where it's at, not SuperGrep!
Fact is, we don't know what the Govt is doing, and all that's happening is that people are projecting their fears to fill the vacuum. It's arguable as to whether the vacuum should be there, but that is a seperate issue to the fact that people are projecting at all.
Re:Start using encryption NOW (Score:1)
Of course, that may not be necessary; it might just be necessary to encrypt a small fraction of network traffic to result in changes at Echelon. Of course, Echelon is reportedly a global operation, so it's necessarily a slow process. Also, I doubt that Echelon is the only communications intercept operation out there. It's something that any government or even any multinational corporation would be interested in, no matter where they're located.
However, I don't think that's as relevant as other considerations. One should be encouraging prudent and secure communications for one's own good, not just to thumb one's nose at the US government. Make your PGP or GPG key available; use encryption routinely, and expect your correspondents to reply in kind. In other words, take responsibility for your own security.
--
Re:Start using encryption NOW (Score:1)
Re:Pointless Secrets (Score:2)
Another thing that is classified is cruise missile guidance software. When it was being developed, it was classified higher than TS, at a level that is classified to even know the name of. I thought that was interesting stuff.
Re:Start using encryption NOW (Score:1)
Why does this site encourage posting in plaintext?
Why dont we all start posting encrypted feedback?
Here are my further thoughts...
qreew ttyfr uuyyu jgfgh fghty wtree tui7r 36jrf
qwtyu yh6fg yuy5r 6544f ghtrt hthju jbytt thtkk
hghju nghnm ewdfg hmuyu gnuyl sdfdg gbnyy btbtb
ljijj ppllp rerre btbtd vfvff saggh grdvv dhdgf
And furthermore
ashgg jytjr hrfbk kgjyy jyeeh jyddd jtyrh jlliu
ps. seriously though, why isn't slashdot a secure web server?
Hmm, is this what they teach at the NSA? (Score:1)
http://www.nsa.gov:808 0/programs/tech/factshts/langtrng.html [nsa.gov]
Multi-Media Language Training
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION: This is a complete multi-media stand-alone course based on a 30-minute situation comedy. It has a variety of learning tools amounting to a total of 160 hours of instruction at three entry levels (200 Mbytes of courseware and 100 Mbytes of audio).
This show is taped in front of a live studio audience
Mr Spy: Hiya Class!
Class: Hello Mr Spy!
Mr Spy: Today we'll learn the letter Ö. That's right kids! It's just a O with two bulletholes over it. It's commonly used in commie contries. Learn to fear it!
(A dark, weird looking janitor walks in and a flowerpots falls on his head)
Janitor (staggers around looking dazed): Ahooööööö
Mr Spy: Oh no, he's a commie spy! Kill him!
(Commercial break)
This show is brought to you by the letter O.
What will happen to the evil Janitor?
Will the class ever learn the perils of the Ö?
Be sure to catch the next episode of:
"Life in the NSA - Like Sesame Street but with more guns and no stupid gay puppets"
Re:This seemed more paranoid than useful (Score:2)
(The remaining 5-% is pretty cool, though, but there's not a lot of that. Working for, say, Transmeta would generate more excitement for the bog-standard
Re:This seemed more paranoid than useful (Score:1)
We don't get to know, but we do get to pay
for it!
Just imagine all the cool stuff "we own".
Government secrecy hurts (Score:3)
This can prevent public reaction from heading off a bad policy early. As we know, it works better to expose mistakes and fix them, or at least avoid repeating them. Can a people really control their own government if they aren't allowed to know what it's done? It's really important that government be open to review and inspection in a democracy. Like source, not many *will* review it, but the fact that someone *could* keeps people honest and on their best behavior.
You said it yourself in your comment, hiding mistakes is gross incompetency and shows a lack of professionalism. Yet our government, military, and corporate power heirarchies are extremely unforgiving of errors. Screw up once and those upward promotions really slow down. Is it any wonder people try to hide mistakes? Many parents demand the same sort of perfection from their kids, much to their and our detriment. It's time to lighten up a little, people make mistakes. Sometimes the best person for the job is someone who has already learned from all the mistakes.
I think programmers learn very quickly that denying the existence of bugs doesn't really work, and that all new software has bugs. Kernel oopses and bluescreens remind us if we forget
I don't deny there is a real need to keep secrets concerning covert operations and military missions. I suspect a very very small percentage of the secrets in Washington actually fall into the category of operational secrecy though.
Re:Start using encryption NOW (Score:2)
Why does this site encourage posting in plaintext?
Why dont we all start posting encrypted feedback?
<Snip Stuff that isn't Rot13ed :+)>
It's mainly because it is a forum - what would be the point of you posting to a discussion if no-one but you could understand it?
ps. seriously though, why isn't slashdot a secure web server?
There isn't a point - Slashdot Accounts are practically valueless (Ok, you might get a extra mod point or two by default over an Anonymous post, but that's not enough to go to the time and effort of trying to "steal" a Slashdot account) and SSL adds a fair processing overhead per connection.
--
Security through obscurity... (Score:1)
Something that is Top Secret is pretty "obscure" where as something that is declassified is "open source". Given this real world example, does security through obscurity have its place and actually work sometimes?
Don't flame me because I'm beautiful.
Re:Security through obscurity... (Score:1)
Re:Just a thought (Score:1)
Re:Stuff on Pinochet (Score:1)
Actually, now that my thinking cap is on (sllluurrppp! Mmmmm coffee), I would hope that there would be enough professionalism to offer him a choice; the red cyanide pill or being torn to shreds by your fellow countrymen.
Re:Stuff on Pinochet (Score:1)
But for your point - yes. If Hussein could argue that someone committed a "crime" against his citizens - he should be able to file extradition for the defendant. But Iraq would have to have a valid extradition treaty with that country (which I doubt).
Then Iraq would have to argue that the crime was one recognized under International Law. In the case of the bombings or other actions during the Gulf War (and the embargo hence); He wouldn't have a case. The US (and allied countries) filed resolutions through the United Nations - so it would be difficult to argue that a crime was committed.
Lastly it would have to be argued that the defendant could receive a fair trail in the country to be extradited to. There is no doubt that Spain is such a country and Iraq is not - so under this issue - the defendant could probably block extradition...
You are obviously ignorant (I don't mean that pejoratively) of the crimes that Pinochet was accused of. Among other thing; basically ordering the murder of journalists who reported unfovorably on his policies...
Re:Start using encryption NOW (Score:1)
Re:Security through obscurity... (Score:1)
Re:This seemed more paranoid than useful (Score:1)
There are rules and guidelines for the classification of documents. Usually there is a guide that lists types of information and the associated classification.
Classified material is a time and money sink. You have to get clearances for employees, hire security officers and custodians, have secure storage facilities, physical security for the facility, follow special procedures in handling and accounting, etc.
Any PHB with two brain cells can think of a 1,000 things that he/she would rather spend the money on.
Re:Pointless Secrets (Score:1)
There are some things that should be classified. Trust me on this one... there are a few things you truely do not want to know about. (Do you really wanna know what that green stuff is?)
Discussions like this always bring to mind the scene from "Deap Impact" where Morgan Freeman is before some gov committee... "It was my impression that you didn't want to know."
Re:Security through obscurity... (Score:2)
It would be security by obscurity if they deliberately used a bizarre filing system, such as alphabetical by middle initial.
The language used in most of the documents could qualify as security by obscurity, except that it is used without regard to security level.
---
I realize I'm a day late, but could you make sure that package from Isreal gets to Bagdad?
Sanity For Today
Farley Flavors (of Fabulous Fast Food fame)
Re:This seemed more paranoid than useful (Score:1)
While Tom Clancy is probably not the paragon of truth, I would believe the mystique of him, his books and his "access" in some of the things mentioned in them that most people don't believe.
Plus, in this week's Navy Times is a big story on how the people who investigate and grant security clearances are seriously swamped... So...
"Dazzle them with brilliance, or blind them with bullshit".
Re:FAS has as spy satellite section too (Score:1)
...phil
Brilliant move (Score:1)
A really brilliant move.
If you say anything against it you can be immediately accused of letting terrorists get information which will help them build nuclear weapons.
"Ok, just prove there ISN'T nuclear weapon information in one of these half-billion pages"
----
James Bond Syndrome (Score:2)
yes. It's the good ol' James Bond Syndrome. Media and entertainment have glamorized encryption and computers and secrets.
For example: People think that being a secret agent is really nifty because of the Mission Impossible and James Bond type movies they see. In reality, secret agents spend most of their time sitting around reading newspapers and magazines to put together little bits of information. A lot of the secrets out there are available, if you just collect enough information. A piece in this trade magazine here, a bit in that newscast there... lots of unclassified information put together creates classified information.
But you rarely see this put forth in the media/entertainment because it's not as glamourous and interesting as breaking into a well guarded room to steal a paper stamped with TOP SECRET.
Most "TOP SECRET" stuff is boring, classified for a reason, and not part of a coverup/conspiracy. People should be worrying more about having access to strong encryption for their own uses, than about what the gov't is busy encrypting for gov't purposes.
---
Declassifying Docs (Score:2)
There aren't three levels of Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. There are higher levels above that, most dealing with Nuclear weapons and things of that sort. There are also restrictions on Who can see it: For US eyes only, For US/Canadian eyes only, and so on.
Most, 95%, of the material classified as Secret is junk. The same holds for Confidential. I presume, based on inference, that probably 50% of Top Secret material is junk.
And people frequently overclassify docs - one person I knew just liked to stamp things with all the cool stamps they give you - so she'd stamp For Canadian/UK eyes only because she was bored.
There were days when I'd take a three-jacket personnel file and strip it down to a single-jacket file, or take a collection of higher grade docs and declassify most of them.
Ah, the good old days
searchable... (Score:1)
anyone out there know the good searching code 0necessary for a project like this?!
Re:Brilliant move (Score:2)
And the October issue over at fas.org mentioned examples of CIA declassfied documents (required by law) were routine things like document check out requests, performance reviews etc.
Eichmann (Score:1)
However, the 1988 convention under which Pinochet is being prosecuted does make the crimes he committed, even in Chile, illegal in any state that signed the convention. Chile signed it, so did the UK and Spain. Spain wanted originally to prosecute Pinochet for crimes committed against Spanish nationals in Chile. The US uses the same logic to persue terrorists in other countries, even when their acts were not committed on US soil.
I'm not sure Iraq is party to the same treaties, but yes, in principle if George Bush visited a country allied with Iraq without a diplomatic passport, he could be extradited to Baghdad to stand trial. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing.
However, Iraq has few allies, and Bush is unlikely to visit any of them. Besides, it's too risky politically. Remember, although international law is, to some extent, codified, it's mostly aout what you can get away with. The rules are not applied equally. Pinochet, having lost all his friends in Washington now that the Cold War is over, can be easily prosecuted.
Certainly it's no more than he deserves.
Cost of clearances (Score:2)
It used to cost about $1000 to $2000 for a Confidential clearance, about $8000 for a Secret clearance, and somewhere around $20000 for a Top Secret clearance.
And when they take too long to clear people, people don't use secure methods, because they have work to do.
One of the silliest things is that we give US citizens, born in the US, an edge in getting a clearance, rather than immigrants. Usually it's the native-born citizens who are the greatest security risks, not the recent immigrants. But I wouldn't say the same for Nuclear-grade clearances - just for the usual junk.
Coolest CIA hacks (Score:5)
The first of the show was fascinating in its own right - what happened to Thresher and Scorpion, two US nuclear submarines that were lost in the 60s with all hands aboard. Remember the guy who spent a lot of time hunting for the Titanic and didn't find it the first few times? Part of that was a cover story; he was actually examining the wreckage of Thresher.
That was pretty amazing (short version: You don't want to be in a sub experiencing a catastrophic failure, but if you saw "the camera in the sub" scene in Trinity And Beyond, a movie consisting largely of similarly-amazing declassified footage of nuclear tests, you already knew that), but the second part of the show totally blew me away.
Those of you who are old enough may remember Howard Hughes and his plan to "mine the oceans" for manganese nodules. I remember hearding about this on a NOVA documentary many years ago.
That entire business plan was a cover story for a CIA op. Hughes was asked to come on board as the ideal cover - "Only Hughes would have the money to try mining the oceans, and it's so zany the public would have no trouble believing it as a Hughes project". The real goal was to retrieve - not "examine the wreckage of", not "send a 'bot into the sub to look for neat toys", but to retrieve, intact, a lost Russian nuclear submarine from a depth 17,000 feet.
What Hughes ended up building was pretty far out, even for Hughes. Imagine a large ship with a submarine-shaped bay ("for holding the manganese nodules") in the middle of it. Now imagine a huge contraption that resembled the business end of salad tongs, but was roughly the length of a submarine.
Now drop the contraption 17,000 feet down on long poles, grab your sub, and raise it. Once raised, pop into the sub to get all the codebooks, communications equipment, reactor design info, and for bonus points, three nuclear missiles. The ultimate prize in the Cold War.
Unfortunately, they scraped bottom on their first attempt, and rather than raise the entire thing up to inspect it thoroughly for damage, they went ahead and picked up the sub anyways. About halfway up, three fingers on the "claw" broke off, leading to structural failure of the sub. The bow, with the bridge and all the intelligence information, along with the nukes, went back down to the bottom and was destroyed on impact. All that remained in the stern were bodies and/or parts thereof.
The only official acknowledgement ever made was that a tape - showing a funeral at sea for the Russian sailors - was eventually sent to the Russian Premier when the secret leaked.
Some of this footage - of the wrecks of Thresher, Scorpion, and the operation to retrieve the aforementioned Russian sub, has only recently been declassified.
Finally, one plan that didn't get off the ground, but was hinted at in that "Interception Capabilities 2000" report - the placement of taps on underground cables. Seems the Russian Northern Fleet used to communicate via undersea cables around the North Cape, and it further seems that "since the cables were undersea, they were secure", and the communications were sent unencrypted. The plan was to use a different type of sub to place a listening device in the sand beneath the cable, (Russian navy inspects cable, sees no tap on cable, lays cable back down on top of buried listening device!) and then to string 2,000 miles of new cable to Greenland, where a satellite uplink would provide the US with real-time intel on the Northern Fleet. Apparently, this plan was scuppered when a mole inside NSA compromised it. It would have cost $2-3 billion dollars -- but what's a billion when you're talking about the possibility of having hours, or even days, of advance notice of World War III?
I have a hunch that 20 years from now, we'll be discovering some similarly audacious things from today's era.
It's been said before, but I'll say it again. NSA and CIA have better things to do with their time than worry about you.
In the meantime - for anyone who's ever wondered "why would geeks ever want to work for the spooks", that's probably just the tip of the iceberg of why. Yes, most of the work is probably mind-numbingly dull, and made even duller by government regulations. But the chance to be part of a once-in-a-lifetime "moon shot" operation, and to play with or develop technology that's beyond the state of the art, is probably a significant motivating factor.
If there's anyone out there reading this who's built a quantum computer or some other piece of technolgy the rest of us haven't even dreamt of yet: "Cool hack, dude! 20-30 years from now, I hope we get to hear your story too."
Re:searchable... (Score:1)
Re:Coolest CIA hacks (Score:2)
For more details check out Blind Man's Bluff by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. It has lotsa stories about the US submarine force being used for espionage (including much more detail on the Huges, Thresher, and cable tapping stories)
I have been inside Area 51 (Score:1)
Re:Coolest CIA hacks (Score:1)
Several years later, he discovered what the research was really about, through contacts at the CIA. They were very concerned about the condition of the bodies when/if they would retrieve the sub; after all, this sub literally sank into a trench.
I believe that, when news of this hit Moscow, the CIA returned the remains of the Russians but refused to hand over the sub itself. Guess they weren't finished copying the technology yet.
Re:Declassifying Docs (Score:1)
Re:Declassifying Docs (Score:1)
> Canada, as well as declassify a lot of information in personnel
> files. And held a Secret clearance.
I'm on the opposite of the coin, re-activating my clearance again to
get back into classified projects (again). I've been dutifully
re-reading my briefing materials, especially about producing
classified documents, and have found them to be pretty up-front and
straightforward. Here's a summary (a techie summary, not an
"executive" summary) for those "not in the know":
1. Classified data = _real_ data. Approximations show up all over.
If you're including actual dates, frequencies, or multiple decimal
points, you're probably producing something that's >= Secret.
2. One classified number classifies that paragraph and, therefore, one
or more paragraphs, depending on your writing (notice, we're
talking paper here). Other pages may be unclassified (e.g., no
reeeally accurate numbers), but a document including the SuperDuper
Secret pages is SuperDuper Secret by the transitive property.
3. You are allowed (and encouraged) to produce unclassified documents
/ reports if at all possible. In the above example, take out the
really neat number and your paragraph, page and document level drop
to lowest possible (e.g., Unclassified).
4. Classification is not a toy (WillAffleck's example is depressing
but probably common). The documented government policy here is
"don't be a dick."
5. Classification exists for a reason. The best example I've ever
heard was when talking with mumble mumble about pre/during-Vietnam
War adventures and why he _still_ wouldn't talk about real details,
his reply was "They(TM) didn't know we could get a submarine in
there." I.e., if they didn't know we could get there, they don't
know _why_ We(TM) were there and what We(TM) were there for. Think
about it, when someone goes looking for something, it's because
someone told them "there's something to look for here." Those are
some of the "assets" that are protected by TopSecret++.
> Most, 95%, of the material classified as Secret is junk. The same
> holds for Confidential. I presume, based on inference, that probably
> 50% of Top Secret material is junk.
6. [Partial agreement] Confidential is silly: "potential risk to
national security"?! [I'm quoting poorly but I don't have the
definition in front of me.] The Jerry Springer show is a known
risk to national security (it decreases the average IQ of the
nation ==> bad ==> national security-- ), should it be classified
Secret?
Blah blah blah - this was a bit more than I intended but sometimes a
definition of terms is useful.
The punchline is: sometimes (often) declassification is a good thing;
just getting the paperwork processed decreases the entropy /
bureacracy of the universe. Sometimes, declassification is literally
not possible: in extreme cases, the "asset" in question is still in
"use" and we really don't want people to know how far the "asset" can
shoot, or where the "asset" lives / works / sends his/her children to
school, etc.
Finally, the easiest way to tell if somebody is working on something
classified is if every answer is a variant of "I don't remember." I
still play this game with mumble mumble above:
DB: "So where'd you go in that sub?"
MM: "Out to sea."
DB: "For how long?"
MM: "A while."
DB: "How long could you stay submerged?"
MM: "Long enough."
==
Doctor Bob
Clearance: I don't remember right now.
Project: Yes.
Re:Coolest CIA hacks (Score:1)
Like another commenter said, I believe the Northern Fleet undersea wiretap was actually carried out, but wasn't in real time... divers would have to go out and recover recorded tape from the cable tap periodically, but this was scrapped when the aforementioned NSA mole spilled the beans... I guess if that had not occured the real-time uplink to Greenland would have been implemented.
A funny consequence of the sub recovery cover story is that sea mining is still tossed around every now and then as an exploitable future source of resources... I have no idea how feasible it will ever be however
Re:Coolest CIA hacks (Score:1)
Found a blurb on fas.org [fas.org] about the operation...
Project Jennifer / Hughes Glomar Explorer [fas.org]
One interesting little factoid is the note that this operation supposedly prompted the first known instance of "cannot confirm or deny"... but I could have sworn the Navy had been using that since the early SSBN days in reply to queries as to whether a particular ship was nuclear-armed...Re:Declassifying Docs (Score:2)
Also, the totality of data can cause a classification, in that the number of tanks in one shop for tread repair may be secret, but the table of data for all the tanks in repair shops for tread repair would be a higher classification because:
1. We now know where all your repair shops are.
2. We now know your mechanical breakdown rates, from which we can infer how well the tanks perform.
3. We now know (or infer) how many tanks you really have and where your high capacity repair shops are.
You get my drift.
feed your paranoia (Score:1)
Combine a FDF from TRW (only URL I could find a few months ago was http://www.isrec.isb-sib.ch/paracel/FD F.html [isb-sib.ch], about its use for pattern matching in DNA/RNA/protein sequence analysis. Couple that w/ SAIC's "In Flight Recorder" (sorry no URL handy)--a real time OC-48 data capture box.
We need FDF/In Flight Recorders, lots of FDF/In Flight Recorders..