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 22:34:57 GMT, james wrote
in :

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:21:21 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

+I can think of many who have ideas on this, but only a few here could
+pass the security clearance and have the ("desired" even if the ad
+doesn't say it) military background and extensive expertise in a related
+field. How about it, Frank? JimH? Feds need folks who are in touch with
+reality when it comes to anything to do with spectum and frequency
+management. Perhaps that would disqualify you both.
*****

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.







----== 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 =----