|
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:25:57 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: +Hmmm..... why would a spectrum allocation advisor need a security +clearance? ******* Considering that the majority of the frequency spectrum from 200 to 400 Mhz is DOD primary control might be a reason. Someone would need more than casual knowledgable of some of the military communications specs. That in itself requires a minimal security clearance. Several other reasons I can think of. Not uncommon if one has to deal with military spectrum usage. james |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:44:03 GMT, james wrote
in : On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:25:57 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: +Hmmm..... why would a spectrum allocation advisor need a security +clearance? ******* Considering that the majority of the frequency spectrum from 200 to 400 Mhz is DOD primary control might be a reason. Which is used mostly for air-ground operations. They also hold huge chunks from 2.7 to 45 GHz. So? Someone would need more than casual knowledgable of some of the military communications specs. Why? It's not like they have developed a "stealth" radio..... That in itself requires a minimal security clearance. Several other reasons I can think of. Not uncommon if one has to deal with military spectrum usage. I -have- dealt with military radio, from HF to microwaves. I still don't see why allocation requires a security clearance. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:56:01 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: +I -have- dealt with military radio, from HF to microwaves. I still +don't see why allocation requires a security clearance. **** As I said elsewhere, from my limited understanding is that the DoD determines to some extent who and wh at job grades and titles require what. Most likely there is something there that is not so obvious. I have only specualted and I relenquish to your su perior knowledge. james |
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:39:37 GMT, james wrote
in : On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:56:01 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: +I -have- dealt with military radio, from HF to microwaves. I still +don't see why allocation requires a security clearance. **** As I said elsewhere, from my limited understanding is that the DoD determines to some extent who and wh at job grades and titles require what. Most likely there is something there that is not so obvious. It might even be a secret, huh? I have only specualted and I relenquish to your su perior knowledge. Even though the frequency allocation chart is publically available and can be downloaded directly from the FCC website, I'm perfectly willing to entertain any insight you might have into the secret processes involved in its construction. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:02:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: +Actually that is one of the lower security clearances and is not that +difficult to get and maintain. IF you have no criminal background, no +membership in subversive organizations and not in severe debt, then +this clearance is easy to get. + + +Unless the system has changed in the past 20 years, there are three +levels of security clearance: 'confidential', 'secret' and 'top +secret'. It is -not- "one of the lower security clearances", and it is +-not- easy to get. ****** Well My brother holds a secret clearance and his job grade was down graded from top secret. I thought he mentioned that was the lowest clearance and he was glad to be there and not at top secret. But then I maybe wrong and Frank you maybe right. Besides I never could see the reason for top secret to track satellite launches either, but there at one time must have been. He would never tell the reason and I never pushed the issue out of respect for the clearance and his job. Why security clearances are issued and required is not always very obcious. I think in part it is what budget the department has and what the DoD determines is necessary for the job grade. james james |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:09:41 GMT, wrote in
: snip BTW, the DoD security clearance "creep"' over the years used to have the confi clearance as the most common. Today, it seems as if secret is the most common clearance. Probably because they have had too many people exposing too many of the government's dirty little secrets. Like their 50-caliber sniper rifle..... can you say "Geneva Convention"? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:25:04 GMT, james wrote
in : On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:02:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: +Actually that is one of the lower security clearances and is not that +difficult to get and maintain. IF you have no criminal background, no +membership in subversive organizations and not in severe debt, then +this clearance is easy to get. + + +Unless the system has changed in the past 20 years, there are three +levels of security clearance: 'confidential', 'secret' and 'top +secret'. It is -not- "one of the lower security clearances", and it is +-not- easy to get. ****** Well My brother holds a secret clearance and his job grade was down graded from top secret. I thought he mentioned that was the lowest clearance and he was glad to be there and not at top secret. But then I maybe wrong and Frank you maybe right. If his clearance was "top secret" he shouldn't have even told you. If he -did- have it he probably lost it -because- he told you. Besides I never could see the reason for top secret to track satellite launches either, but there at one time must have been. He would never tell the reason and I never pushed the issue out of respect for the clearance and his job. I take it that you've never heard of spy satellites? Space-based weapons? Even some of the less-than-secret communication satellites and space probes have very hot nuclear materials for power and need to be tracked just in case they fail to reach orbit (it has happened before, and because of it the entire planet has now been exposed to Plutonium 239). Why security clearances are issued and required is not always very obcious. I think in part it is what budget the department has and what the DoD determines is necessary for the job grade. Most government secrets are justified, but a lot of secrecy has to do with the government breaking it's own laws and international treaties. That's not just a fact -- it's a time-honored tradition. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Frank Gilliland wrote: On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:25:04 GMT, james wrote in : On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:02:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: +Actually that is one of the lower security clearances and is not that +difficult to get and maintain. IF you have no criminal background, no +membership in subversive organizations and not in severe debt, then +this clearance is easy to get. + + +Unless the system has changed in the past 20 years, there are three +levels of security clearance: 'confidential', 'secret' and 'top +secret'. It is -not- "one of the lower security clearances", and it is +-not- easy to get. ****** Well My brother holds a secret clearance and his job grade was down graded from top secret. I thought he mentioned that was the lowest clearance and he was glad to be there and not at top secret. But then I maybe wrong and Frank you maybe right. If his clearance was "top secret" he shouldn't have even told you. If he -did- have it he probably lost it -because- he told you. Besides I never could see the reason for top secret to track satellite launches either, but there at one time must have been. He would never tell the reason and I never pushed the issue out of respect for the clearance and his job. I take it that you've never heard of spy satellites? Space-based weapons? Even some of the less-than-secret communication satellites and space probes have very hot nuclear materials for power and need to be tracked just in case they fail to reach orbit (it has happened before, and because of it the entire planet has now been exposed to Plutonium 239). Why security clearances are issued and required is not always very obcious. I think in part it is what budget the department has and what the DoD determines is necessary for the job grade. break Most government secrets are justified, but a lot of secrecy has to do with the government breaking it's own laws and international treaties. That's not just a fact -- it's a time-honored tradition. to enlarge on your statement... even more secrecy has to do with maintaining appeanrces and the "face" of some folks involved For example It is my understand that what a certain General had for meals in "nam is still a secert so as not to emabarrish the miliatry admiting that in diet and and housing etc rank doeth have its preledges" ----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet = News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ = Newsgroups ----=3D East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption = =3D---- |
On 14 Aug 2005 22:57:40 -0700, "an_old_friend"
wrote in .com: break Most government secrets are justified, but a lot of secrecy has to do with the government breaking it's own laws and international treaties. That's not just a fact -- it's a time-honored tradition. to enlarge on your statement... even more secrecy has to do with maintaining appeanrces and the "face" of some folks involved For example It is my understand that what a certain General had for meals in "nam is still a secert so as not to emabarrish the miliatry admiting that in diet and and housing etc rank doeth have its preledges" Very true. When the Nassau docked in Haifa (1984), an unnamed Major gave us the standard "behave yourselves, kiddies" speech before we were released on liberty. That very night he (the Major) got drunk, staggered into the street, got himself hit by a taxi and permanently paralyzed. That's bad PR so they called in all the witnesses and swore them to secrecy about the staggering-around-drunk part of the story. BTW, for his "heroism" this Major went on to become an Olympic torch-bearer. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com