This article was published a few days ago in the New York Times. The article initially informs us of a top secret satellite that the government announced would "fall out of the sky" in the next few months. It goes on, however, to detail the experiences of a small group of satellite spotters who track these man-made devices through the sky. With binoculars, telescopes, a little mathematical know-how and a lot of patience, normal citizens can chart the progress of top-secret satellites.
This article ties in to several of the issues we've been talking about in class. The satellite watches share information and collaborate through a website and a list serve. The way they communicate about what they learn satisfies the scientific norm of communalism, and because there is no fame or money involved in these discoveries, I could image they are fairly disinterested in the results of their calculations.
It also brings up an ethical question; should people in the scientific community share their work if it could be detrimental to national security? If savvy North Americans in their backyards can gain this level of knowledge about the United State's most sensitive satellites, what prevents other nations from doing the same? As the director of globalsecurity.org says at the end of the article “If Ted can track all these satellites, so can the Chinese."
4 comments:
I think the "work" these hobbyists are putting in is an essential form of scientific citizen journalism. The mainstream media's reporting on scientific/technological matter is generally pretty nondescript and only the tip of the iceberg...these hobbyists stand as experienced individuals who can flesh out a story like this one http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118714764716998275.html
--in which, we learn the our government has turned its foreign spy satellites inward. These are satellites which can penetrate walls. CoIntelPro on speed?
So if we're moving toward a 1984-style police state, I (deeply) appreciate and encourage these empowering folks to shed as much light on these dark policies as possible.
I also found this article very interesting. With the intelligence that our government has power over today, there are a lot of questions surrounding what exactly it is that our government is doing with these secret satellites and top secret information. Is it possible that someone could be watching any one of us at all times? What about the Patriot Act? Yes, these "backyard scientists" can track the US's secret satellites, but who is to say what these satellites are watching, recording, and consequently, how the government is reacting.
On another note, in regards to all of the satellites orbiting the Earth right now, are we putting too much into space? I was watching the Atlantis space mission launch yesterday and a thought came to mind, "What are the chances of a shuttle colliding with a satellite?". It is an abstract thought, but with all the instruments we are cluttering space with, are there potential dangers? It is necessary that we continue to spend billions of dollars on these things? I can't really make a solid standpoint because i can't predict the future, but I do have a feeling something is going to happen with these satellites in the near future. Whether good or bad, you tell me.
Julia had a great point to say about the disinterestedness that these hobbyists are putting into their satellite tracking. The hobby takes a lot of time and effort for any substantial findings to be made. The hobbyists carefully observing and calculations seem to work harder than many people with whom I am familiar do at their paying job sites. However, the hobbyists show passionate for what they are doing not for profit but more for the benefit of the knowledge of the general public concerning these peculiar metal objects in the sky. Considering the paths and functions of these "secrete" satellites are not divulged to the public by the mass media very often, we can really gain from a better knowledge of how exactly these satellites can affect our everyday lives.
In contrast to the disinterestedness that Julia brought up, there is inherently a degree of interestedness shown by the journalist that typed up this article for The New York Times, John Schwartz, due to his being presumably paid for the article that he submitted.
Notice how similar this issue is to the one of secrecy addressed in the readings a couple of weeks ago. When we say "interested" or "disinterested," WHOSE interest is at stake? How do we judge competing interests?
Post a Comment