Talk:Jindalee Operational Radar Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
Jindalee Operational Radar Network is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] earlier comments
It's interesting to note that the IP address 203.14.96.53 belongs to RLM Group, the company that built Jindalee. I wonder why they, or their client, don't want coordinates in a Wikipedia article?
Results of query:
| IP address: | 203.14.96.53 |
| Reverse DNS: | srv000.rlmgroup.com.au. |
| Reverse DNS authenticity: | [Verified] |
| ASN: | 1221 |
| ASN Name: | ASN-TELSTRA (Telstra Pty Ltd) |
| IP range connectivity: | 1 |
| Registrar (per ASN): | APNIC |
| Country (per IP registrar): | AU [Australia] |
| Country Currency: | AUD [Australia Dollars] |
| Country IP Range: | 203.14.64.0 to 203.14.127.255 |
| Country fraud profile: | Normal |
| City (per outside source): | Burwood, New South Wales |
| Country (per outside source): | AU [Australia] |
| Private (internal) IP? | No |
| IP address registrar: | whois.apnic.net |
| Known Proxy? | No |
| Link for WHOIS: | 203.14.96.53 |
- What do you think? It's pretty bloody obvious given the strategic importance of such a system! Wikiphyte 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- No it's not. All the facts in the article are from freely available publications. There are no secrets in the article. One thing about the Department of Defence is that they do security properly. They recognise that securing data properly takes time and money so one of their mantras is "do not over classify". Over classification simply overloads the system and reduces the security of the real secrets. Compare this with the paranoia in a typical company, where everything is a secret and consequently every piece of information gets the same low level of security. To me it's the work of a weekend warrior from RLM who took matters into his own hands. John Dalton 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you work for the Department of Defence? Are you really sure that they "do security properly"? Wikiphyte 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- It being a large organisation, maybe I have a little too much faith in the Department of Defence. I'll restate my position: parts of the Department know how to do security properly while other parts are incompetent. Question is which part is currently handling the Jindalee project? The part that handled the contracting seems to be the latter, but the part that developed the technology would seem to be smart and fall into the category of knowing security. John Dalton 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just out of interest, what parts of Defence do you think are incompetent? Wikiphyte 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- It being a large organisation, maybe I have a little too much faith in the Department of Defence. I'll restate my position: parts of the Department know how to do security properly while other parts are incompetent. Question is which part is currently handling the Jindalee project? The part that handled the contracting seems to be the latter, but the part that developed the technology would seem to be smart and fall into the category of knowing security. John Dalton 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you work for the Department of Defence? Are you really sure that they "do security properly"? Wikiphyte 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No it's not. All the facts in the article are from freely available publications. There are no secrets in the article. One thing about the Department of Defence is that they do security properly. They recognise that securing data properly takes time and money so one of their mantras is "do not over classify". Over classification simply overloads the system and reduces the security of the real secrets. Compare this with the paranoia in a typical company, where everything is a secret and consequently every piece of information gets the same low level of security. To me it's the work of a weekend warrior from RLM who took matters into his own hands. John Dalton 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- As the co-ordinates are cited to a public website it seems perfectly safe to assume that this isn't classified information. The Defence Annual Report is always worth a read to see the suprising level of detail on operations and military readiness which is publicaly available. Publically available Australian National Audit Office Reports on Defence also go into great detail. --Nick Dowling 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the Defence Term for "isn't classified" is UNRESTRICTED, but yeah you maybe right. Wikiphyte 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
