An aircraft carrier can be seen with the naked eye from 10 meters above the shore for about 28 miles.

So the entire Spanish coast, Moroccan coast, Algerian coast, mallorca, sardegna, Sicily, tunesia, the Greek isles, and who knows how many cruise ships, fishing vessels, and commercial aircraft all saw this ship.

• CGMthrowaway

  today at 6:38 PM

  Are you aware of a policy that allows Strava when within sight of shore, but bans it when under more sensitive operation?

  Or is this article perhaps better interpreted as an example of a dangerous behavior that could be happening also during those sensitive times (in which case, it is unlikely that French media would be even running a story with a map of the sensitive location)?

• HoldOnAMinute

  today at 6:50 PM

  If you can guess what shape the runner was going in, you could infer a lot of information from that squiggly line in the picture. You could determine the ship's course and speed.

This is a common problem across militaries. It is difficult to stop soldiers from leaking their location if they have access to mobile phones and the Internet. Individual cases are usually a combination of naïveté, ignorance, and an unwillingness to be inconvenienced.

It still happens in Ukraine, where immediate risk to life and limb is much more severe than this case.

• JJMcJ

  today at 5:31 PM

  There was fitness tracker that posted locations without user names.

  Well, wouldn't you know, in Iraq there were all these square paths on the map. Yes, it was Americans jogging just inside the perimeter of small bases.

  Just like with the aircraft carrier, these bases were not secret but it shows how locations can leak unexpectedly.

  • FuriouslyAdrift

    today at 6:59 PM

    It was FitBit and they got banned all over govt services because of it.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/06/...

  • wrsh07

    today at 6:59 PM

    It was also Strava, and it showed "popular running routes"

    Example post https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/7tnzxy/stravas_hea...

• sa46

  today at 6:55 PM

  About 15 years ago, our brigade conducted a training exercise to test overall readiness. The opposing force (OPFOR) figured out how to triangulate the brigade headquarters' position using Tinder.

  Tinder provided 1-mile granularity, so OPFOR would roam around until they had enough points to locate the headquarters. Then, they'd artillery it out of existence. The brigade commander was most displeased—moving a brigade headquarters is not for the weak or fainthearted.

• paganel

  today at 2:42 PM

  I agree with Ukraine, but only when it comes to the first two or so years of the war, by now most of those that didn’t respect those rules (I’m talking both sides) are either dead or missing some limbs. With that told, just recently the Russian MOD has started applying heavy penalties to its soldiers close to the frontlines who were still using Telegram and/or the Ukrainian mobile network (?!), so it looks like there are still some behaviors left to correct.

  • lava_pidgeon

    today at 5:02 PM

    TG ist another case. This is more a crackdown on the uncensored internet. My guess Ukrainians are also using TG without problems.

  • throwaway27448

    today at 5:07 PM

    It's also a morale issue. It's easier to get people to huddle in a cold and damp hole if they can play video games and watch anime.

    • losvedir

      today at 6:31 PM

      In my day, playing video games and watching anime didn't imply a network connection.

    • alphawhisky

      today at 6:18 PM

      It's not a "cold, damp hole", it's called my basement, and there's also Dr. Pepper.

    • GJim

      today at 5:30 PM

      anime?

      • barrucadu

        today at 5:46 PM

        A style of animated TV show from Japan

• jmyeet

  today at 7:36 PM

  It's this kind of incident that gives me faith that the military isn't hiding aliens and in fact pretty much any grand conspiracy that requires secrecy across a large group of people for long periods of time can pretty much be dismissed immediately.

  One of my favorite examples are the soldiers who leaked classified information to win arguments on online forums [1]. Similar incidents have occurred with a Minecraft Discord [2].

  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65354513

  [2]: https://www.ign.com/articles/how-classified-pentagon-documen...

What's interesting here isn't that nation-states can track aircraft carriers - they've always been able to. It's that Le Monde did it with what's essentially a consumer API. The 2018 Strava heatmap incident showed this data leaks passively; now we're seeing it used for active, targeted tracking by journalists with a story idea and some scripting. That gap closing is the actual news.

• marstall

  today at 8:18 PM

  [deleted]

Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret? Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.

• jcalx

  today at 5:12 PM

  I would have thought so too but Naval Gazing has a short series [0] on why it's not as dire as one might think. An aircraft carrier's location being "secret" in this case is just one layer of the survivability onion [1] anyhow. (Caveat that as someone who takes a casual interest in this, I can't vouch for accurate this is at all.)

  [0] https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1

  [1] https://www.goonhammer.com/star-wars-armada-naval-academy-wa...

  • rtkwe

    today at 6:08 PM

    It is important to note the Naval Gazing article is specifically talking about the difficulties of actually targeting a ship for a successful kill rather than just tracking it. It's in response to the idea that satellites plus missiles would mean carriers could be instantly destroyed in a first round of hostilities with a sufficiently prepared opponent. Tracking is a lot easier to do than getting data fresh and precise enough to hit the ship with no other tools (eg ships already nearby that can get a live precise track vs terminal detection and guidance on the missile itself).

    Also the capabilities of commercial and government geospatial systems has only continued to improve in the ~decade since the article was written.

    • btown

      today at 7:39 PM

      It also seems worth considering that the article's view that "spending a lot of time searching for the carrier is a good way to get killed by defending fighters" is a distinctly pre-drone-ubiquity assumption.

      Can a carrier group's point defense weapons and fighters reliably counter a swarm of hundreds of cheap drones, flying lower than cloud cover, that are programmed to look for carriers over a wide area, confirm their shape optically, paint them for missiles, and take the disconnection/destruction of any one of them as an indication of possible activity and automated retasking? It's a scary world to be a slow-moving vehicle, these days.

  • OscarCunningham

    today at 6:53 PM

    Oh I get it, the onion is made of Swiss cheese.

  • torginus

    today at 6:40 PM

    Well everything's impossible, until its not.

• astrobe_

  today at 3:04 PM

  It's pretty hard to hide it from anything. Its surface is ~17000 m² (a tennis court is ~260 m²), and is 75 m high (~ 25 floors building - probably half of it under water, but still). And that's a mid-sized carrier according to Wikipedia.

  It's not built for hiding at all, that's what submarines are for (and that's where our nukes are).

  • chistev

    today at 5:08 PM

    But the ocean is very very huge to find it still.

    • paxys

      today at 5:29 PM

      You don't have to search the entire planet. A carrier's general location is always semi-public. There are websites dedicated to tracking them, just like jets. And carriers roll with an entire strike group of 8-10 ships and 5-10K personnel, which are together impossible to miss.

      A carrier strike group isn't meant to be stealthy. Quite the opposite. It is the ultimate tool for power projection and making a statement. If it is moving to a new region it will do so with horns blaring.

      Obviously troops shouldn't be broadcasting their location regardless, but this particular leak isn't as impactful as the news is making it out to be.

    • torginus

      today at 6:46 PM

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

      Am I supposed to believe we live in a world where this exists, yet carriers are impossible to find and track on the sea?

      Besides, modern fighter jets have radars with 400km detection ranges against fighter sized targets.

      A dozen of them or more specialized sensor aircraft could cover entire conflict zones.

    • justsomehnguy

      today at 5:36 PM

      And American carriers never operate alone, it's a whole Carrier Battle Group there.

      • cwillu

        today at 6:19 PM

        The battle group doesn't cruise around in formation, for specifically this reason.

  • cosmicgadget

    today at 3:54 PM

    Well clearly since the De Gaulle is using a fitness app it's working on it.

• altairprime

  today at 6:09 PM

  It’s like trying to find someone you see in a street view image from a maps provider. The data will always be at least an hour old and that’s a hundred times as long as it takes for the person to be impossibly labor-intensive to find. Carriers are easier to find once you’re on the ocean in close proximity than someone in a city is, but then so are you — and the carrier has armed warplanes whose job is to prevent you from being within observational distance of the carrier in realtime.

  It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work. Do they drop a buoy with a giant inflating stop sign on it? Fly Tholian-webs perpendicular to the sailing path?

  • loeg

    today at 6:48 PM

    > It’s like trying to find someone you see in a street view image from a maps provider.

    Are we talking about Strava, or satellites? It's not obvious to me that exercise data is any more real time or easy to find than satellite tracking.

    > It does make me wonder how a warplane stops a merchant vessel without blowing it up if the radio doesn’t work.

    Shots across the bows are a pretty universal signal.

    • altairprime

      today at 7:10 PM

      Oh. Duh, that’s a good point. The plane can shoot in Z-axes. Thanks.

  • today at 6:49 PM

  • alphawhisky

    today at 6:26 PM

    I'm pretty sure if you don't have a working radio in int'l waters you'd be assumed to be a pirate vessel and promptly boarded/shot at yes.

• petee

  today at 1:57 PM

  I'd guess it also risks exposing a specific account as a crew member, making them trackable back on shore; particularly if you're uploading the same routes

• MikeNotThePope

  today at 6:59 PM

  If I had to guess, which I do, I'd say that it's not a big deal that an adversary capable of threatening an aircraft carrier knows where it generally is. What is a big deal is knowing precisely where it is when an undetected projectile needs pinpoint accuracy moments before blowing a big hole in it.

• nickburns

  today at 1:48 PM

  Le Monde making use of what's actually available to them in real time—is the story here.

  • caminante

    today at 6:55 PM

    that...wasn't nice

• dgrin91

  today at 1:50 PM

  Satellite images are not always real time. Also satellites can be affected by things like cloud cover.

  • mxfh

    today at 5:45 PM

    Strava tracks can also be spoofed and you have no guarantee for them to appear on a schedule either. I just find this to be on the sensationalist side of "data" journalism lacking any sort of contextualization or threat level assessment. Unless there was evidence of some more sensitive locations that have not been published along this story, it looks like some serious unserious case of journalism to me.

  • fuoqi

    today at 2:12 PM

    For tracking of military ships it's much better to use radar imaging satellites (e.g. see [0]). They can cover a larger area, see ships really well, and almost not affected by weather.

    I will not be surprised if China has a constellation of such satellites to track US carriers and it's why Pentagon keeps them relatively far from Iran, since it's likely that China confidentially shares targeting information with them.

    [0]: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Coperni...

    • phire

      today at 2:53 PM

      China has Huanjing [0], which is officially for "environmental monitoring", but almost certainly has enough resolution to track large ships (at least the later versions, apparently the early versions had poor resolution)

      And even if they didn't, Russia have Kondor, [1] which is explicitly military, and we know they have been sharing data with Iran.

      [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huanjing_(satellite) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondor_(satellite)

  • jandrewrogers

    today at 2:21 PM

    Clouds only affect a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Plenty of satellite constellations use synthetic aperture radar, for example, which can see ships regardless of cloud cover. There are gaps in revisit rates, especially over the ocean, but even that has come way down.

• miningape

  today at 1:49 PM

  No need to make it easier though

• today at 2:45 PM

• Totoradio

  today at 2:34 PM

  True, but think about the reverse: being able to flag a strava user as being part of the french navy can be valuable too

• 4fterd4rk

  today at 2:31 PM

  Many of the threats to a carrier aren’t nation states with a constellation of satellites.

  • snowwrestler

    today at 2:45 PM

    You can buy satellite imaging.

    Operationally, navies with carriers assume that opponents know where they are.

    • Someone

      today at 5:02 PM

      Commercial image providers can delay their images. See for example https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260310-us-satellite-...: “American firm Planet Labs PBC on Tuesday said it now imposes a two-week delay for access to its satellite images of the Middle East because of the US-Israeli war against Iran.”

      • filleduchaos

        today at 5:56 PM

        Do you seriously think they were referring to commercial image providers when they mentioned nation-states being able to buy images/tracking?

        • Someone

          today at 6:16 PM

          Yes. https://www.satellitetoday.com/imagery-and-sensing/2025/05/1...:

          “BlackSky CEO Brian O’Toole echoed “strong momentum” from international government customers, saying these governments want to move faster with commercial capabilities.

          […]

          Motoyuki Arai, CEO of Japanese synthetic aperture radar (SAR) company Synspective said that he sees “huge demand” from the Japan Ministry of Defense

          […]

          Speaking to commercial imagery’s role in Ukraine, Capella Space CEO Frank Backes said Ukraine showed the value of Earth Observation (EO) data from a military tactical perspective and not just an intelligence perspective — driven by speed of access.”

  • nitwit005

    today at 5:19 PM

    Everyone who's a threat to the carrier can get that from an ally.

    You can damage or sink an ordinary ship with a bombing, like what happened to the USS Cole, but a carrier will have a fleet escorting them.

• mmooss

  today at 2:06 PM

  > Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.

  At one time I guessed that too, but I've heard navy people explain that it's actually pretty effective. Imagine saying 'pretty hard to hide in North America from a satellite' - it's actually not hard because the area is so large; there aren't live images of the entire area and someone needs to examine them. Oceans are an order of magnitude larger.

  A significant element of security for naval ships is hiding in the ocean. US aircraft carrier planes have a ~500 mi effective radius without refueling; even if you see a plane, all you know is that the ship might be in a ~3,142 square mile area. And remember that to target them, you need a precise target and the ships tend to be moving.

  With ML image recognition at least some of that security is lost. Also, the Mediterranean is smaller than the oceans, but the precision issue applies. And we might guess that countries keep critical areas under constant surveillance - e.g., I doubt anything sails near the Taiwan Strait without many countries having a live picture.

  • Jblx2

    today at 7:17 PM

    >US aircraft carrier planes have a ~500 mi effective radius without refueling; even if you see a plane, all you know is that the ship might be in a ~3,142 square mile area.

    pi*(500 miles)^2 = 785,400 sq. miles.

• sandworm101

  today at 2:29 PM

  >> Pretty hard to hide from a satellite I'd imagine.

  Clouds. (Radar sats can see through clouds but can also be jammed.)

  But even on a clear day, most of the people looking to target a carrier these days (Iran/hamas etc) don't have their own satellites. But a real-time GPS position accurate to few meters? That could be tactically useful to anyone with a drone.

  An active fitness tracker might also give away the ship's readiness state, under the assumption that people aren't going to be doing much jogging while at battle stations.

  • jjwiseman

    today at 7:42 PM

    Jamming is a good way to make sure everyone knows exactly where you are.

  • tokai

    today at 5:42 PM

    Iran has their own satellites. They are also allied with Russia that has satellites and launch capabilities.

    • cwillu

      today at 6:23 PM

      Russia has very limited numbers of SAR satellites, it's very unlikely that Iran has any.

      Specifically, wikipedia suggests Russia has a grand total of 3 such satellites.

    • drnick1

      today at 5:54 PM

      > Iran has their own satellites.

      It's probably safe to say they have been destroyed, jammed, or spoofed since the war started.

      • rtkwe

        today at 6:11 PM

        Not destroyed at least. Anything that big would show up pretty clearly, the US and other publish the orbital tracks of anything big enough to be a meaningful spy sat and it being destroyed would show up in that data.

      • unselect5917

        today at 6:29 PM

        Based on what? They said it would take a few days and now they're asking for $200,000,000,000.00 to continue it, because it's not going as planned and Israel is still getting hammered: https://x.com/search?q=israel%20sirens%20since%3A2026-03-19&...

      • tokai

        today at 6:13 PM

        That is not safe to say at all. There is not reason to suspect that without any sources. Messing with satellites is a taboo approaching that of nuclear, every time someone test or mention anti-satellite capabilities it has made for international condemnation.

        So please don't make unlikely claims up without any evidence.

• hollerith

  today at 2:14 PM

  >Is an aircraft carrier's location supposed to be secret?

  Precise location, yes. At least in the US Navy this is an important part of the carrier's protection. (Having destroyers between the carrier and potential threats is another.)

• NoMoreNicksLeft

  today at 1:58 PM

  Sometimes there are things that you don't want publicly known even if they're not strictly secret.

  • blitzar

    today at 2:42 PM

    Sometimes there are things that you want publicly known even if they're strictly secret.

• ImPostingOnHN

  today at 2:07 PM

  Many countries do not have ready access to satellite imagery, much less realtime satellite imagery. Iran, for example.

  • rtkwe

    today at 6:12 PM

    Anyone with a big enough checkbook can rent 12 50 centimeter resolution overflights a day from Planet Labs. Their 1.3m resolution is maybe enough to track it in decently cooperative weather given enough compute spend.

    https://www.planet.com/pulse/12x-rapid-revisit-announcement/

  • paxys

    today at 2:34 PM

    Iran is being fed intelligence by Russia, so they definitely have that info.

    • barrenko

      today at 5:42 PM

      China*

    • ImPostingOnHN

      today at 2:43 PM

      okay, imagine a different example which you don't think is being fed intelligence by russia

      • nitwit005

        today at 5:16 PM

        Everyone capable of damaging the ships can get that intelligence.

I seriously doubt there is a country on earth which lacks the capability to detect an aircraft carrier's presence in the Mediterranean sea.

We are not talking about stealth vehicles.

• deepsun

  today at 5:17 PM

  Mediterranean maybe (although I'm not sure), but it's actually very hard to find a ship, even as large as an aircraft carrier, in the ocean. The empty space is just too big. Satellites have hard time taking pictures of every square mile of a sea to find any ship, yet alone the one you need.

  • the8472

    today at 6:25 PM

    Ships are giant hunks of metal and radio emitters. They light up on SAR satellites[0]. Sentinel-1 gets whole earth coverage and a revisit time of 1-3 days[1] with two active satellites. And that's the public stuff, if you can afford a fleet or even some extra fuel to steer them into interesting orbits you can get faster revisits.

    [0] https://x.com/hwtnv/status/2031326840519041114 [1] https://sentiwiki.copernicus.eu/__attachments/1672913/Revisi...

    • rustyhancock

      today at 8:11 PM

      And they also don't travel alone.

      5-10 ships moving at speed across the ocean. Blasting the skies with radar.

      Its as easy as anything is to find it in the ocean. And were pretty damn good at tracking ships at sea even small fishing vessels let alone a floating city.

      The threat model to CSGs are basically nuclear submarines from nations that would simply tail the group if needed.

  • cbsks

    today at 5:52 PM

    I really don’t want to work for the defense industry, but I have to admit that they do have very fun problems to solve. You know there are people at NRO who are dedicated to ship tracking via satellite. I assume they can easily track ships without cloud cover, but how do they do it when it’s cloudy? Heat signatures? Synthetic Aperture Radar? Wake detection?

    • jasonwatkinspdx

      today at 7:35 PM

      ELINT and SAR.

      For the first one, just look at wikipedia lists of government says that fly as little triangular constellations, like Yaogan 9A, 9B, 9C on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaogan

      Those are ELINT birds that use multilateration to spot emitters globally.

      SAR can spot wakes far, far, larger than ships using the same techniques as SAR measuring ground erosion, etc.

    • mikkupikku

      today at 6:06 PM

      I'd be mildly surprised if they not using SAR for this all the time, not only during cloud cover. The Soviet Union was using radar satellites (the RORSATs) to track carriers decades ago.

      • mapt

        today at 6:22 PM

        Neither SAR nor high resolution optical sensing are trivial at panopticon scale.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GTpBMPjjFc is a good overview of what's up there so far, and what's coming as they really try to scale the technology.

        Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this. SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.

        I would think that medium and high orbit optical tracking (daytime, cloudless sky) is probably used, because with video you can reasonably track subpixel targets if they're high contrast, without a lot of data transmission requirements.

        • Sanzig

          today at 7:15 PM

          > Bandwidth and processing are substantial bottlenecks with SAR; Only targeted and stationary applications have been broadly useful so far, and more focus has been put on planes than satellites for this.

          I'm not sure why you assume this, this is factually incorrect. Satellite based SAR has been successfully used for civilian ship detection applications (traffic management, illegal fishing, smuggling detection, etc) for over three decades. I am sure its military use goes back much further.

          > SAR is not as simple as taking a static image with a fixed resolution, your sensing window has got a target velocity and distance in mind and the antenna and processing needs to be tuned for that.

          No? SAR satellites take thousands of SAR images of stationary scenes every day. It's true that object motion in the scene introduces artifacts, specifically displacement from true position - this is often called the "train off track" phenomenon, as a train moving at speed when viewed with SAR from the right angle will look like it's driving through the adjacent field rather than on the track. However, this isn't a significant problem, and can actually be useful in some situations (eg: looking at how far a ship is deflected from its wake to estimate its speed).

          • convolvatron

            today at 7:49 PM

            40 years ago the USN was working on using SAR with a elliptical kalmann filter to detect _submarine_ wakes. I assume things haven't digressed since then.

    • dnautics

      today at 7:07 PM

      > You know there are people at NRO who are dedicated to ship tracking via satellite.

      I feel like there must be people at NRO whi are dedicated to sub tracking via satellite.

    • drivebyhooting

      today at 7:30 PM

      I wish defense paid better. The problems are infinitely more interesting than ads. And it’s not like social media is a saint anyway.

      • wahnfrieden

        today at 7:36 PM

        Hmmm on the one hand murder, on the other hand ads

        • tehjoker

          today at 8:03 PM

          It would be fine if "defense" is what was meant, but they recently changed it back to a far more honest "department of war".

          • drivebyhooting

            today at 8:09 PM

            BigTech ought to renamed too. BigVice maybe?

    • wolfi1

      today at 8:01 PM

      when it's cloudy, heat signatures won't help, infrared is blocked by clouds

  • mytailorisrich

    today at 6:38 PM

    Satellites only have to track, not find.

    Aircraft carriers sail from home ports and are frequently visible to all. The Charles de Gaulle was previously in Denmark for instance, then obviously everyone can also see you crossing the English Channel and Straight of Gibraltar.

    So from there it is only a matter of keeping an eye on it for anyone with satellites. So obviously all the "big guys" know where the other guys' capital ships are.

  • ajross

    today at 7:01 PM

    > it's actually very hard to find a ship, even as large as an aircraft carrier, in the ocean

    I just ran some googled numbers over my envelope, and I get that the Mediterranean sea (great circle distance between Gibraltar and Beirut is 2300mi) is about 14000x larger than the bow-to-stern length (858') of the carrier.

    That's... not that terribly difficult as an imaging problem. Just a very tractable number of well-resolved 12k phone camera images would be able to bullseye it.

    Obviously there are technical problems to be solved, like how to get the phones into the stratosphere on a regular basis for coverage, and the annoyance of "clouds" blocking the view. So it's not a DIY project.

    But it seems eminently doable to me. The barriers in place are definitely not that the "empty space is just too big". The globe is kinda small these days.

    • MengerSponge

      today at 7:31 PM

      And you've defined a harder problem! Once you've found it once it's much easier to find in the future: it can only go so fast, and it's constrained to stay in relatively deep water.

      • NooneAtAll3

        today at 7:58 PM

        to be fair "relatively deep water" is 99% of seas and oceans...

  • charcircuit

    today at 5:19 PM

    You would only need to find it once, potentially at a port, and then you can follow it.

    • matkoniecz

      today at 5:31 PM

      This capability is available only to few countries on planet.

      Not all of them.

      • fxtentacle

        today at 5:53 PM

        You can rent access to nearly real-time custom satellite targeting for <$3k per image. That means while you're correct that not all countries can afford it, most can.

        • maxerickson

          today at 6:22 PM

          So you task the satellite to where you know the ship is?

          • exe34

            today at 6:50 PM

            Would you prefer to lose it first?

          • bigyabai

            today at 6:42 PM

            To get a naval fix, you usually define an "area of uncertainty" around the last confirmed location of the ship. The area is usually a circle with the radius being the maximum distance the ship/group could travel at full speed.

            So, you don't exactly "know" where the ship is, but you can draw a hypothetical geofence around where it's likely to be, and scan that area.

            • Phemist

              today at 7:29 PM

              So the satellite can know where the ship is, because it knows where it isn't? Then it's a simple matter of subtracting the isn't from the is, or the is from the isn't (whichever is greater)?

        • matkoniecz

          today at 6:09 PM

          What if US government bans US-based companies from selling pictures within area where carrier operates?

          (of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)

          • rocqua

            today at 6:14 PM

            Figure out where you can't buy pictures to narrow it down, if you want a more exact match, pay for pictures from that area from non US providers.

          • blitzar

            today at 6:28 PM

            Planet Labs PBC, a leading provider of high resolution images taken from space, said Friday it would hold back for 96 hours images of Gulf states targeted by Iranian drone attacks.

            It did not say if it had acted at the request of US authorities.

            https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/leading-satellite-firm-hol...

          • marcosdumay

            today at 7:09 PM

            Do them publish the banned coordinates in a list too? Maybe they could put the reason at each line.

      • SteveNuts

        today at 5:42 PM

        I admit I'm incredibly naive on this subject, but what makes it so hard to track an object as large as an aircraft carrier when starting from a known position such as a naval port?

        • estearum

          today at 5:46 PM

          As described above the issue would be continuous observation, not how to follow it assuming you never lose sight of it.

          • OneDeuxTriSeiGo

            today at 6:03 PM

            You certainly can't do continuous observation but even just with commercial satellite offerings you can get pretty close.

            For example nowadays Planet Labs [1] offers 30-50cm resolution imaging at a rate of one image or 120sec video stream every 90 minutes over a given 500 km^2 region. There is no situation where an aircraft carrier is going to be capable of evading a commercial satellite offering with that frequency and resolution. Once you know approximately where it is or even where it was in the semi-recent past, it's fairly trivial to narrow in and build a track off the location and course.

            1. https://www.planet.com/products/satellite-monitoring/

          • rtkwe

            today at 5:53 PM

            Commercial operations like Planet Labs currently cover most of the Earth multiple times a day.

        • malfist

          today at 6:10 PM

          Clouds occasionally happen

          • IshKebab

            today at 6:18 PM

            SAR is not blocked by clouds.

        • chias

          today at 5:47 PM

          What would you track them with? Follow them with helicopters and/or boats?

          • rtkwe

            today at 5:57 PM

            Break out the pocket book and pay Planet Labs to do it. You could do it with much less frequent visits than this probably the search area for it every 2 hours isn't very large and image recognition systems are pretty good. The big threat is cloud cover.

            https://www.planet.com/pulse/12x-rapid-revisit-announcement/

            • OneDeuxTriSeiGo

              today at 6:11 PM

              Note that that article is from 2020. Nowadays the frequency is actually down to 90 minutes/1.5hr. The resolution is up as well and they can do massive image capture (~500km^2) and video (120sec stream) from their passes.

              Also nowadays they provide multi-spectal capture as well which can mostly see through cloud cover even if it takes a bit more bandwidth and postprocessing.

            • matkoniecz

              today at 6:10 PM

              What if US government bans US-based companies from selling pictures within area where carrier operates?

              (of all "national security" reasons these is one of more reasonable ones)

              • rtkwe

                today at 6:14 PM

                The problem then is the black out zones themselves reveal a lot as well if adversaries can find their bounds. That narrows the search area for their own observation satellites immensely even if it's too large to respond to IRL.

              • jyoung8607

                today at 6:23 PM

                If the restricted area is large, a carrier is regionally disabling for an imagery provider. If it's smaller (and therefore must move over time to follow the carrier group) as soon as the imagery provider starts refusing sales in an area, any customer can test and learn its perimeter with trial purchases, find a coarse center, and learn its course and speed. You don't care about anything else until there's actual hostilities.

              • OneDeuxTriSeiGo

                today at 6:16 PM

                Well in that case congratulations. You've just made it easier. Now you don't even have to track them. You just have to look for the blacked out box, the "error we can't show you this", reused imagery from their long running historical imagery dataset, or improperly fused/healed imagery after alteration.

                So now you don't have to do the tracking, just find the hole.

                And then you can use a non-US provider to get direct imagery now that you know exactly where to look.

              • torginus

                today at 6:34 PM

                It would make tracking impossible, as no other country operates satellites.

          • filleduchaos

            today at 5:53 PM

            ...literally yes (to the latter)? Is that not exactly why modern warships have to implement things like measures to reduce their radar cross section? If you could actually just rely on "ocean too big" then there would be no need for that.

            • OneDeuxTriSeiGo

              today at 6:35 PM

              It is in part for small crafts (frigates and corvettes) but for pretty much anything larger there's no concealing those ships.

              The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict.

              Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship.

              Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it.

              And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel.

              So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.

          • vntok

            today at 5:54 PM

            You don't even need a free account on flightradar24 to track its planes, at least two launch from it and pattern circle around it almost daily.

            • matkoniecz

              today at 6:10 PM

              That relies on transponders which can be switched of if decision is taken to do so.

              • vntok

                today at 6:59 PM

                Sure, and they don't decide to do that in many cases.

      • bell-cot

        today at 6:12 PM

        Those are the few countries that France needs to worry about.

        Doesn't matter whether Estonia, Honduras, Laos, and Luxembourg can track their carrier, or not.

        EDIT: In confined waters (like the Mediterranean), many more countries could track the carrier if they cared to. Even back in the 1950's, the Soviets got quite adept at loading "fishing boats" with electronic equipment, then trailing behind US Navy carrier groups.

      • geeunits

        today at 6:19 PM

        was

      • swarnie

        today at 6:03 PM

        Billy Boy from the Island can use commercial satellites to map mud huts for his vaccine NGO, i'm sure any nation state can find a few quid to locate a war ship.

      • s5300

        today at 7:58 PM

        [dead]

  • joe_mamba

    today at 5:23 PM

    >Satellites have hard time taking pictures of every square mile of a sea to find any ship, yet alone the one you need.

    That's why satellites use radars and scientific instrumentation magnetometers to find stuff like ships or even subs underwater.

    • nradov

      today at 6:47 PM

      There might be some secret technology that we're unaware of but as far as we know magnetometers can only be used to detect underwater targets at very short ranges. I highly doubt that they're used on military reconnaissance satellites.

      • jasonwatkinspdx

        today at 8:14 PM

        Subs produce a surface level displacement wake that can be detected by SAR.

    • post-it

      today at 5:38 PM

      Those suffer from the same problem. There's a lot of ocean, and if you don't know where to look then you won't find what you're looking for.

      • Sanzig

        today at 5:55 PM

        Eh, not really. Synthetic Aperture Radar satellites used for marine ship detection have extremely wide sensor swath widths, and ships show up as very bright radar targets against the ocean. Detecting a large ship, even in a very large search area, is almost trivial.

        Identifying a ship is harder, but not insurmountable. In particular, large ships like aircraft carriers tend to have very identifiable radar signatures if your resolution is high enough.

        • throwaway894345

          today at 6:22 PM

          How do these work? I would think radar would have a very difficult time seeing a ship against the backdrop of the ocean from so high above. Is the satellite bouncing radar waves off the side of the ship as the satellite is near the horizon? Even if you can detect a ship, I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?

          • jasonwatkinspdx

            today at 8:17 PM

            > I would think

            Just do a youtube search and you'll find plenty of talking head explainer videos. Ignore the talking head and just look at the imagery and data they share.

          • OneDeuxTriSeiGo

            today at 6:43 PM

            Even with an extremely low resolution radar hit they are very identifiable.

            Most naval vessels move in groups/squadrons. Carriers basically always travel with a "carrier strike group"/CSG of a dozen other ships and destroyers often travel in "destroyer squadrons"/DESRONs. So any time you see a cluster of hits, just by the relative responses of each hit you can narrow down and guess the entire CSG/DESRON in one go and then work out which responses map to which ship in the CSG/DESRON once you have a good idea of which group you are looking at.

            This is especially true because ships even within the same class have varying ages, different block numbers, and differing retrofits. So each one has a unique signature to it.

            But also if you aren't completely certain you can always come back with a second high resolution pass and then it's trivial to identify each ship just visually.

            • throwaway894345

              today at 7:47 PM

              Granted, but how does satellite radar actually see ships at all? How do the ships not blend into the ocean (the relative difference between the distances between ship<->satellite and ocean<->satellite is minescule)?

              EDIT: the sibling comment already provided a high quality answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47458766

          • Sanzig

            today at 6:38 PM

            SAR operates in side-looking slant geometry.

            Consider shooting a ray at the ocean at an oblique angle from a satellite: it bounces off and scatters away from you. Hardly any of the energy scatters back towards you.

            Now, put a ship there. The ray bounces off the surface of the ocean and scatters up into the side of the ship, and from geometry, it's going to bounce off the ship and come straight back towards its original source. You get tons of energy coming back at you.

            A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.

            > I'm having a hard time imagining a sufficiently high radar resolution for such a wide sensor swath width at such an extreme range. Is the idea that you locate it with the wide sensor swath and then get a detailed radar signature from a more precise sensor?

            That's one approach, there are so-called "tip and cue" concepts that do exactly this: a lead satellite will operate in a wide swath mode to detect targets, and then feed them back to a chase satellite which is operating in a high resolution spotlight mode to collect detailed radar images of the target for classification and identification.

            However, aircraft carriers are big, so I don't think you'd even need to do the followup spotlight mode for identification. As an example, RADARSAT-2 does 35 meter resolution at a 450 km swath for its ship detection mode. That's plenty to be able to detect and identify an aircraft carrier, and that's a 20 year old civilian mission with public documentation, not a cutting edge military surveillance system. There are concepts for multi-aperture systems that can hit resolutions of less than ten meters at 500 km swath width using digital beamforming, like Germany's HRWS concept.

            tl;dr: Radar works very well for this.

            • mrguyorama

              today at 7:53 PM

              >A ship on the ocean is basically a dihedral corner reflector, which is a very good target for a radar.

              This is why the Zumwalt and other low observable designs are going back to roughly tumblehome hulls:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer#/media...

              If only it could actually do anything. I genuinely don't understand how we refused to retrofit any weapon system to the gun mounts. We have 5inch guns. They aren't the magic cannon it was designed for but do they really not fit? Apparently we are now putting hypersonic missiles in those mounts instead.

              Can't exactly make a Carrier that shape though.

            • throwaway894345

              today at 7:48 PM

              This is cool. Thanks for the detailed follow up!

            • Gitechnolo

              today at 7:35 PM

              [dead]

      • joe_mamba

        today at 5:41 PM

        >if you don't know where to look

        I mean fuck, I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too and just look there for the carrier. If I can't find the carrier there, then I can plot the course between France and hormuz and do a brute force search over that course taking into account such a ship's relative velocity, since it's not like the carrier is gonna zig-zag through south america and the north pole on its way there to avoid detection. Is what I'm saying something sci-fi?

        • gherkinnn

          today at 5:46 PM

          It is dangerous to believe a problem goes only as deep as one's understanding of it.

          • joe_mamba

            today at 5:48 PM

            I am always open to corrections from specialists in the field or just any average joes with a different opinion. That's why I keep coming here.

            • burnished

              today at 6:09 PM

              It is absolutely one of the better benefits of this forum

        • blitzar

          today at 6:47 PM

          > I can pretty easily find the strait of hormuz on the map, pretty sure intelligence agencies can too

          Seems to have come as a shock to the US government.

  • reactordev

    today at 6:10 PM

    This. You can search for years for a ship and never find it.

• garyfirestorm

  today at 6:41 PM

  We couldn’t find a commercial jet (MH370). Both, while it was still flying in the air and after it was presumably lost in the ocean. They couldn’t track it in the air nor can they still find its remains after looking for it for so long. This problem is not trivial.

  • seizethecheese

    today at 6:51 PM

    A commercial jet is both way smaller and faster moving than an aircraft carrier. I suspect this is like saying: why can’t you see the fly in the photo, the turtle is right there!

    • simlevesque

      today at 7:09 PM

      It can also go over any part of the globe. The aircraft carrier is limited to non-shallow water.

      • today at 7:16 PM

  • baq

    today at 6:44 PM

    There's a nonzero chance military intelligence agencies of multiple countries know exactly where that plane fell, but none can say anything, because that would reveal the true extent of their capabilities.

    • abcd_f

      today at 7:01 PM

      Just like it was with that amateur sub that imploded. It later surfaced the Navy heard the implosion and knew what it was.

      • awesome_dude

        today at 7:04 PM

        Uhhh surfaced?

        • dmos62

          today at 7:14 PM

          Made me smile. Thank you.

    • IncreasePosts

      today at 7:19 PM

      They could just feed the data to some associated outside party with some other plausible explanation. But, there are only a few, maybe two countries, with the ability and desire to have listening stations all over the ocean, and neither one is particularly interested in the Indian ocean.

  • loeg

    today at 6:44 PM

    The Indian Ocean is both larger and has significantly less traffic than the Mediterranean. And a 777 is about 16x faster than a carrier.

    • TeMPOraL

      today at 7:17 PM

      > And a 777 is about 16x faster than a carrier.

      Surely that's missing a 0 or are carriers really that fast?

      • marricks

        today at 7:22 PM

        Aircraft carrier speed... 33 knots or about 35mph[1]

        Boeing 777 speed 554mph[2]

        So about 16x!

        [1] http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.php

        [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777

        • ray__

          today at 7:24 PM

          Honestly pretty crazy, although that must be the max speed. The carrier was going about 10 mph in this case (per Strava).

      • jmalicki

        today at 7:23 PM

        Commercial airliners are sub mach1. The Charles de Gaulle is reported to go at least 27 knots at top speed.

        27*16=432, a 777 goes 510-520 knots.

        So maybe more like 18-19x.

        For the carriers it is at least as the true top speed is classified.

      • today at 7:23 PM

  • kergonath

    today at 7:59 PM

    Surprisingly, it is much easier to find a big chunk of steel floating on the Mediterranean, knowing where it was a couple of days ago, than a smaller object disintegrated in small pieces under the Indian Ocean. Go figure.

  • literalAardvark

    today at 7:09 PM

    MH370 crashed in the Pacific.

    Look at the globe some day from that angle and compare it to the Mediterranean.

    • contingencies

      today at 7:24 PM

      Err, no. The consensus and available evidence including washed up components seems to be that it crashed in the Indian Ocean, that's the (also vast) space between ~Australia and ~Africa, bounded in the north by Indonesia, the Indian subcontinent, and Arabia. It crashed somewhere in the eastern portion, not far from Indonesia and Australia. Currents then took parts as far as the Maldives/Sri Lanka, IIRC. The Pacific is the other (eastern) side of Australia, which stretches from the Aussie-Kiwi approach to the South Pole to Alaska, and Vladivostok to Tierra del Fuego.

      • kergonath

        today at 8:05 PM

        > Currents then took parts as far as the Maldives/Sri Lanka, IIRC

        Some bits ended up on a beach of the Réunion island, closer to Madagascar than Sri Lanka. I am not disagreeing, it’s just that the whole story is fascinating. It’s easy to think "well, it just crashed into the sea so of course some bits would show up on a beach" until you look at the Indian Ocean with a proper projection and figure the scale.

        • contingencies

          today at 8:18 PM

          Floating is a powerful physical configuration! You get currents plus windspeed. If you're in to this sort of thing, I can recommend The Seacraft of Prehistory, We: The Navigators, and Archaeology of the Boat approximately in that order.

      • stavros

        today at 7:33 PM

        Are you making the same point as the person you said "err, no" to, or are you correcting the inconsequential details while not addressing their main point?

  • today at 6:54 PM

  • epsteingpt

    today at 6:57 PM

    Different times. Now there are thousands of LEO satellites.

  • today at 6:45 PM

  • wat10000

    today at 7:23 PM

    Nobody was looking for MH370 while it was in the air. After a few hours, it rapidly became a submarine, which is a type of craft that's well known for being hard to find. In addition to that, it took on its new submersible form in one of the most remote areas of the ocean, rather than in a small and very busy sea.

• fiftyacorn

  today at 5:34 PM

  Yeah id be more impressed if he found a submarine using strava

  • CGMthrowaway

    today at 6:37 PM

    Here you go: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/videos/article/2025/01/13/stravale...

  • today at 6:21 PM

  • BobaFloutist

    today at 6:30 PM

    Especially considering the limited jogging/biking space on a sub.

  • kjkjadksj

    today at 6:35 PM

    How about secret bases?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...

• rtkwe

  today at 5:20 PM

  If they have ships in the area sure but picking it out of the ocean if you don't already know where it is on satellite data is a lot harder. Until the last decade or so satellite tracking of ships visually was essentially the domain of huge defense budgets like the US that had more continuous satellite coverage. It'd be interesting to see how well that could be done now with something like Planet and tracking it forwards in time from port visits or other known publicized pinpointing.

• JumpCrisscross

  today at 5:21 PM

  > seriously doubt there is a country on earth which lacks the capability to detect an aircraft carrier

  They probably lack the ability to figure out which specialists are on board.

• echoangle

  today at 5:19 PM

  Maybe stupid question but how would Iran do it? They don’t have any ships in the area and also don’t have any satellites that could take pictures, right?

  Or does getting told by Russia count?

  • snickerbockers

    today at 5:25 PM

    America has intelligence-sharing agreements with allied nations wherein our satellites are taking photos on the allies' behalf of things that we might not otherwise be interested in. I'm sure China and Russia have similar arrangements with their allies.

    • guerrilla

      today at 6:35 PM

      Iran does with Russia. It's been in the news a lot lately. I have no doubt they do with China as well.

      • mrguyorama

        today at 8:15 PM

        China is absolutely sharing intel with Iran. They cannot believe their luck. The US is getting itself into a Ukraine, draining all their advanced weapon stocks, delivering tons of real war data for China to work with.

        It's like Christmas. Real practice tracking US assets and wargaming against them is such a break for them.

  • rtkwe

    today at 5:24 PM

    I bet you could do it with a big enough expense account with Planet Labs and the compute power to process the images these days. Track it forwards from the last public port of call or *INT leak like this strava data. 3.7m accuracy seems like enough to do it. It's not enough to target it directly but it would be enough to get more capable assets into the right area a la the interception of Japan's ships when they attacked Midway.

    • bpodgursky

      today at 5:31 PM

      Iran, like most countries, does not a blue water navy with assets in the Mediterranean sea to perform realtime surveillance.

      • rtkwe

        today at 6:01 PM

        They had a handful of frigates mostly but those could go out as far as the Med pretty easily. One of their ships was sunk near Sri Lanka.

        • signatoremo

          today at 6:33 PM

          It was sunk there because it attended an on-off event in India before that. Iran's ships don't get on regular trips far from home.

          • rtkwe

            today at 6:53 PM

            They don't but it shows they could.

            • awesome_dude

              today at 7:30 PM

              I mean, a personal yacht can sail around the world, that's not really demonstrating whether the vessel is useful in combat operations anywhere in the world.

  • elif

    today at 5:24 PM

    Look at marinetraffic.com and then try to map a course across the Mediterranean that won't be seen by dozens of ships. It's impossible.

  • ronnier

    today at 5:19 PM

    Russia and China help them.

  • CamperBob2

    today at 5:38 PM

    Yes, Russia helps Iran target our troops and (likely) sailors.

    But don't you dare suggest that hanging a portrait of Putin in the White House is inappropriate, or a Republican might get mad.

    • drysine

      today at 6:57 PM

      >Yes, Russia helps Iran target our troops and (likely) sailors.

      You surely know that the US helps Ukrainian target Russian troops and refineries deep in Russia?

      • CamperBob2

        today at 7:02 PM

        I certainly hope so, but we've pretty much hung Ukraine out to dry under Trump [1], just like we did the Iranian protesters.

        Unlike Russia, Ukraine evidently doesn't have any kompromat on Trump or the Republican Party in general.

        1: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-military-aid-ukraine-...

        • Joker_vD

          today at 7:42 PM

          > I certainly hope so

          Then you probably should accept that proxy wars work both ways. And well, it's not really Iran's fault that its borders has crept so close to the US military bases.

          • CamperBob2

            today at 7:59 PM

            Who is Iran a proxy for? Russia, as usual, has only benefited from Trump's actions.

            The one thing you can say about Iran is that they were absolute morons not to actually build or otherwise acquire a nuclear arsenal. They had decades. If Pakistan could do it...

• thisisnotmyname

  today at 6:41 PM

  Isn’t the point that if you can identify one naval vessel by this means you can probably identify many?

• 2OEH8eoCRo0

  today at 7:44 PM

  Why make it easier for them?

  I think people tend to lack imagination about how some piece of intel could be used by an adversary.

• Barrin92

  today at 7:34 PM

  That's not really the point. The issue is that a soldier almost certainly without a lot of thought ended up leaking information that he wasn't aware of leaking.

  And furthermore identifiable information of a particular individual, which people can use to for example find out what unit he is deployed with, which may give you information about what the mission is about and so on.

  In WW2 when transmitting morse code individual operators used to have what was called a 'fist', skilled listeners could identify and track operators by their unique signature. This was used during world war 2 to track where particular individuals and units were moved which gave people a great deal of information not just where but what they were up to.

  If you leak the Fitbit information of a guy who foreign intelligence has identified as being part of a unit that's always involved in particular operations you didn't just give something obvious away but potentially something very sensitive.

• 1970-01-01

  today at 5:33 PM

  If Charles de Gaulle turns off AIS, how does North Korea find it?

  • drysine

    today at 5:42 PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malligyong-1

    • rtkwe

      today at 6:04 PM

      That's in a sun synchronous orbit so would only over fly once a day so the task does get a lot tougher. A few days of bad weather and you've largely lost the ship.

  • vntok

    today at 5:57 PM

    Track not the ship itself but the planes that take off and land on it. Many sites will expose their paths, you'll see the planes circling in a pattern around "some void" - that's the ship.

    • 1970-01-01

      today at 6:19 PM

      Many sites? Can you show me any De Gaulle aircraft currently in-flight?

      • vntok

        today at 6:58 PM

        You can find yesterday's location easily on flightradar24.com. Try it it will make you feel like an ossint sleuth or something. Look to the south of Cyprus.

        Now that's not realtime because I'm telling you after the fact. But if you were paid to do it, of course, then you'd spend some money on an actual account on this and similar services, which would get you many more filters and much more precise data.

    • cwillu

      today at 6:17 PM

      If de Gaulle is turning off AIS, it stands to reason that it's also turning off the transponders in the air wing.

      • crote

        today at 7:31 PM

        The US tried this with their Venezuela raid. It resulted in a tanker almost hitting a passenger plane twice in two days. [0]

        Turning off AIS while allowing civilian traffic is incredibly risky, and creating a huge no-fly zone in the Med is politically tricky.

        [0]: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/16/americas/venezuela-near-c...

      • vntok

        today at 6:50 PM

        Not at all, depends on the mission. In fact you can spot yesterday's location of the ship right now on flightradar.

        It was patrolling ~100km below Cyprus's main southern city.

        Move the timeline to yesterday, find a non-Boeing military plane in that zone, enable flight traces and keep trying planes until you see an ovoidal pattern circling around "nothing"... but that nothingness moves over time.m; that's the ship.

        • kergonath

          today at 8:11 PM

          > In fact you can spot yesterday's location of the ship right now on flightradar.

          No need to go that far. Macron did press conferences in Cyprus and on the Charles de Gaulle. You just need a passing glance at the headlines of a French newspaper. Or any decent international news channel (granted, that’s a bit tricky in the US).

        • 1970-01-01

          today at 7:13 PM

          I checked - nothing but commercial air: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?replay=2026-03-19-02:31&lat=...

      • kjkjadksj

        today at 6:37 PM

        Maybe, maybe not. When the US did their venezuela maduro operation they turned on adsb on f15e for whatever reason. And only turned it on for like a portion of the mission so maybe that wasn’t intentional.

IIRC USA had similar issues with soldiers using Strava exposing secret bases[0]. I wonder wat kind of connectivity they had, was it Satellite internet for the carrier or did it sync once they got close to the shore? For the first one maybe they should switch to whitelist and not whitelist Strava.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...

Cruising speed of Charles de Gaulle is 27knots which would give the runner a pace of around 1:10mins/km depending on direction. That would really screw up your Strava stats

• nradov

  today at 6:59 PM

  I occasionally see civilians on Strava doing the same thing, running laps around the deck of a cruise ship. The speeds and distances look ridiculous.

• abeppu

  today at 7:44 PM

  So I'm actually confused that in the little image of his run in the article it seems he's often making absolute progress in the opposite direction the ship is going for part of each lap. Like, was the ship going unusually slowly?

• yread

  today at 6:36 PM

  His pace was 4:38 over 7.2km and his track seems to backtrack at times so either the carrier was doing weird maneuvers or he is running faster than they are carrier.

  I imagine they are in no rush to get closer to Lebanon. So maybe they are running in circles

• swarnie

  today at 6:05 PM

  Reminds me of Fitbit using heartrate to approximately guess calories used.

  I'm told with a lengthy night on uppers can you can get your 24/hr burn up to the 7000-10000.

  • fenykep

    today at 6:58 PM

    I was doing support for a fitness data aggregator where a partner reported an issue: a user logging 15k+ steps between 9pm and 4am with minimal location delta. Sadly I wasn't able to push a "stay hydrated" notification over our system to the user.

President Xi - my country yearns for freedom.

How does the smart watch have any service out in the middle of the Med? Must be getting it from the ship, are they not firewalling outbound traffic?

• francisofascii

  today at 6:20 PM

  GPS watches don't need service, they just need line of site to the GPS satellites. Uploading to Strava requires service, but that can be done any time after the activity.

• today at 6:24 PM

• rtkwe

  today at 6:21 PM

  Under wartime conditions they would but rules are looser out of combat so sailors can use personal devices for entertainment etc to keep morale up.

• NullPrefix

  today at 6:20 PM

  GPS tries to cover the whole globe, app uses GPS to get location. Ship probably has internet connection in the from of wifi or a cell tower with a starlink or other sattelite backbone link and app's traffic is encrypted so ships firewalls cannot easily block this

This is a repeating phenomenon, and probably worse on land. Fitness and run tracking apps also reveal troop locations and concentrations on land (location clusters reported by apps targeted at non-local-language audiences stick out like a sore thumb).

Some people here say an aircraft carrier can be seen from satellites so it's not a big deal. They miss a point (as I did too): this means you can identify individuals present on the carrier, so they become vulnerable to investigation and blackmail. Another country could threaten this individual's family to give some important information or worse (sabotage).

It's been a problem for nearly 2 decades.

Think about it: suddenly, in the middle of the desert in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria/Niger/Djibouti a bunch of people start using a fitness tracker every morning (and the clusters show up in Strava). Did some village suddenly jump on the "get fit" bandwagon? Or could it be a bunch of US Marines/SpecOps/etc people trying to keep fit.

It would be cool if they actually wer just altering the GPS location data before uploading, so the location reported was false. GPX/TCX files are trivial to edit. "All warfare is based on deception"

More than accurate enough to put an ASM in the right ballpark.

Modern militaries face some interesting challenges.

Possibly mobile apps should be designed to be somewhat secure for military use by defaul, backed by law.

Alternately, phones should have a military safe OS with vetted app store. Something like F-droid, or more on toto phone ubuntu, but tailored.

Obviously, you still need to be security conscious. But a system that is easy to reason about for mortals would not be a bad idea.

Rules like secure by default, and no telemetry or data exfiltration, (and no popups etc), wouldn't be the worst. Add in that you then have a market for people to actually engage with to make more secure apps, and

A) Military can then at least have something like a phone on them, sometimes. Which can be good for morale.

B) it improves civilian infrastructure reliability and resiliance as well.

Along with the Strava secret base location leak, another interesting one was the ship with a contraband Starlink:

  As the Independence class Littoral Combat Ship USS Manchester plied the 
  waters of the West Pacific in 2023, it had a totally unauthorized Starlink 
  satellite internet antenna secretly installed on top of the ship by its gold 
  crew’s chiefs. That antenna and associated WiFi network were set up without 
  the knowledge of the ship’s captain, according to a fantastic Navy Times 
  story about this absolutely bizarre scheme. It presented such a huge security 
  risk, violating the basic tenets of operational security and cyber hygiene, 
  that it is hard to believe. 
  

Merde!

All through this whole ghost fleet thing I've had this question as to how a large ship in the sea can possibly keep its movements secret. Large media organisations seem to be unable to say where large tankers have been if they turn their transponders off.

Don't we have constellations of satellites constantly imaging the entire earth, both with visual and synthetic aperture radar, with many offering their data freely to the public? Wouldn't a large ship on the ocean stick out somewhat? And yet journalists seem lost without vesselfinder. Is this harder than I'm imagining, or are they just not paying the right orgs for the info?

If I were china I would buy strata and offer all features free of charge

Those LeMonde guys are pretty sharp, it was on Twitcher only yesterday ... https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/2034734061613129740

https://archive.is/jDMmD

That's nothing, we also have this: https://github.com/BigBodyCobain/Shadowbroker

What's funny is I can imagine the sailor not understanding how the code works and properly setting up a "privacy zone" while at port to mask his location and verifying it was working while there

then of course while at sea, it's the same ship but different location

not like your home or workplace typically relocates itself

imagine being a coder at Strava trying to figure out how to deal with that, it's techically not possible

However it's a great marketing opportunity for Stryd footpod which can track distance without GPS

I wonder what a moving deck at even 10mph would do to a Stryd though

The GPS must have added 10mph? But it's all relative to the deck vs the sea, hmm

Seems we need a new digital category for Darwin Awards.

This is the modern way to die of stupidity — use your fitness watch app to log your miles on an online app instead of locally — so reveal your operational location.

The US had one of its secret bases in Afghanistan fully mapped for anyone to see by its residents logging their on-base runs.

Now, the French aircraft carrier is pinpointed en route to a war zone.

Yes OPSEC is hard, and they should be trained to not do this, but it seems to be getting ridiculous. If I were in command of such units, I'd certainly be calling for packet inspection and a large blacklist restriction of apps like that (and the research to back it up).

Local first is not just a cute quirk of geeks, it is a serious requirement.

• swisniewski

  today at 7:43 PM

  Or not.

  For facilities where this actually matters, controls are put in place to try and prevent that type of thing. You aren't actually allowed to bring an Apple Watch into a SCIF, and there are processes in place to try to screen to prevent you from doing that.

  If there was a "secret base" that didn't screen for people bringing outside devices it's likely because they didn't think that someone listening in on the conversations happening inside the base, or being able to use external devices to locate the base was big enough of a threat to warrant the hassle of adding screening.

  You can't actually implement app blacklists and packet inspections for a wireless device you don't control. And if you want to prohibit people from having and using devices you don't control in specific locations, you implement controls to prevent that from happening.

  If you allow sailors or soldiers to have personal electronic devices in the first place, you've already accepted the risks they represent.

  This really is a non issue.

  For example, the fact that devices with wireless radios, microphones, and cameras with both hardware and software of unknown provenance are allowed on an aircraft carrier are much bigger security risks than the fact that the device was using an exercise tracking app. There's much, much, much, much more valuable information on an aircraft carrier that could be compromised by these devices than the boat's location (which is not really secret).

  I'm willing to make a bet that the Captian of the Aircraft Carrier and the Admiral commanding the strike group prefer the fitness benefits their sailors get from having such devices / apps then they do from the security risks they represented.

  If the risk was real enough... the devices wouldn't be allowed on the boat in the first place.

  This just seems like people overreacting to what is really a non event.

• yunnpp

  today at 7:17 PM

  > This is the modern way to die of stupidity

  With how bad the human experiment generally is, I rejoice in the fact that our own stupidity will be our undoing. Imagine if we did things correctly.

I recall something similar happened on US ships last year because of the Applewatch.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

• lm28469

  today at 2:40 PM

  > It's not a declaration of war to project your military power to a region you have an interest in.

  There was no declaration of war by anyone so far, and I doubt Iran would wait for an official letter telling them they're allowed to sink a US allied carrier, especially now that they killed the leader's wife, son, dad, and a bunch of relatives (plus the only dude who the US could reasonably negotiate with)

  • Theodores

    today at 3:04 PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

    Nobody declares war these days. It is always going to be some type of 'special military operation' at best.

    Declaring war implies sticking to the rules. Decapitation strikes on the leadership with side portions of schools getting bombed would be considered illegal if war had been formally declared. Equally, having cluster munitions rain down from the sky over populated cities is also not exactly morally correct.

    Rules makes war a sport of sorts, it might as well be boxing where you are not supposed to bite ears or punch below the belt. Yet, if you came under assault and needed to defend yourself, then a bite to the ear or a kick in the balls might make sense at the time.

• rcxdude

  today at 2:17 PM

  I think the international community is demonstrating to the US that they can't drop their military support for their allies and also expect that they still help to clean up their messes.

  • FridayoLeary

    today at 2:35 PM

    I kind of understand that, although of course i completely disagree with their line of thinking. Iran is everyones problem and open conflict like this would have been hard to avoid down the road. Point is they had months to anticipate this latest conflict, why did they do absolutely nothing to mitigate this? Why was the UK apparently completely unprepared? Europe's economy is suffering, more then America. Why do we even bother with a Navy if we don't wan't to use it?

    Also what military support did they drop exactly? Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever. I will point out that it was the US, through a combination of bombing and diplomacy that got rid of the Houthi threat to shipping. Nobody else succeeded.

    • cwillu

      today at 6:36 PM

      The pan of oil on the stove is everyone's problem, but when the dumbass decides the way to deal with it is to pour water on it, it is now in everyone's interest to leave the area.

    • Maken

      today at 2:45 PM

      How is Iran anyone but Israel and USA's problem?

      • Jensson

        today at 3:05 PM

        They fund terrorism in the countries around them, all the neighboring countries there hates Iran. That is why they aren't really angry that USA is bombing Iran.

        • forty

          today at 5:08 PM

          I think they are kind of angry? At least they don't seem interested in participating despite being targeted by Iran themselves, I don't know how more they could express their disagreement with this operation than even accepting to be bombed without any reaction?

    • lm28469

      today at 2:48 PM

      > Iran is everyones problem

      It was at best a regional problem until the US and israel decided to fuck things up and make it a global problem, they didn't have nukes, they were not building nukes, even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats, so just like israel, everyone is OK with them having nukes despite being the same type of religious nutjob thecracy, strange. Iranians are very rational when it comes to escalation, more so than israel.

      > Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and the US has been carrying 90% of NATO since forever

      Yeah idk, maybe don't put cia bases there then? And maybe don't antagonize russia for decades and act surprised when they act like enemies.

      You won't catch me defending Russia or Iran but get the fuck out of here with the "the US are the good guys and we're doing god's work by wiping out evil regimes" rhetoric lmao

      > Nobody else succeeded.

      Yes because that's the only thing they know and understand, bombs, if the problem cannot be solved with bombs they're useless

      • Jensson

        today at 3:03 PM

        > even if they had nukes they would not have used them for anything other than extinction level threats

        I'd agree for just about any other country, but Iran have a terrorist regime that is funding terrorists everywhere. They are not like Pakistan or North Korea etc, Iran is crazy and doesn't follow normal international norms.

        Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.

        • BigTTYGothGF

          today at 3:34 PM

          The US has been funding terrorists for longer than the current state of Iran (or even its predecessor) has been around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état#Uni... and we still haven't nuked anybody in anger since 1945.

          • Jensson

            today at 4:01 PM

            Funding coups is not the same thing as funding terrorists. Terrorists attacks and kills civilians, coups just targets leaders. If Iran funded coups in nearby countries that would be a sane thing to do, funding terrorists is what makes them an insane force that you can't predict what they will do with a bomb.

            Russia also funds coups, not terrorists. You didn't see a lot of suicide bombings and such in Ukraine before Russia attacked, Russia did the sane thing and sent in Russians in the Russian areas to build support etc, funding terrorism is just plain evil and serves no purpose. That is the difference.

            • lm28469

              today at 4:09 PM

              > coups just targets leaders.

              This died day 1 when you bombed a fucking school and killed 168 girls. For a lot of these countries the US is a terrorist state. It doesn't matter if the explosive is strapped to a guy's chest or to a tomahawk

              • Jensson

                today at 4:12 PM

                > This died day 1 when you bombed a fucking school and killed 168 girls

                I didn't bomb a school, I am not American. Americans are much more against this war than most people of the world. I know a lot of Iranians that are very happy that the regime is getting bombed.

                • lm28469

                  today at 4:18 PM

                  > I know a lot of Iranians that are very happy that the regime is getting bombed.

                  Ask them about the electrical infrastructure, or the unis, or the research enters, or the heritage sites... How did it go in Afghanistan btw? The "democracy" was delivered and well received right?

            • BigTTYGothGF

              today at 6:04 PM

              OK then how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras#U.S._military_and_fina...

        • lm28469

          today at 3:44 PM

          > Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries

          Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao, a country which just attacked them without declaring war, pearl harbor style, without congress approval, against all kind of international laws, because israel was going in anyways (according to Rubio) for their holy war

          Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.

          • Jensson

            today at 3:55 PM

            > Third party to who? they all host US bases lmao

            That is no reason to bomb them. Belarus hosts Russian bases but Ukraine doesn't bomb them. International norms is that military bases that aren't actively used to attack aren't valid targets, only Iran breaks that.

            > Stop drinking the kool aid and plug in your brain, it's way more nuanced than you're lead to believe. No one is "crazy", they all have very rational reasons for what they're doing, the fact that you don't even try to understand them doesn't mean they don't exist.

            They are crazy, they got the entire middle east against them now with those attacks. I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks, they do however condemn Iran for launching attacks at them. Iran strategy failed fully and all they do is dig in further and launch even more attacks on these countries.

            That is insane and serves no purpose.

            • lm28469

              today at 4:04 PM

              > That is no reason to bomb them.

              For you, for the new leader of Iran who just lost his dad/wife/brother/son in US strikes it might sound like a very reasonable thing to do.

              > That is insane and serves no purpose.

              How do you qualify the original attack that started the whole thing? Iran has been pretty clear about how it retaliates and escalates, they did not attack all the targets on day 1, they gradually increased with the US/Israel strikes. They only attacked foreign infrastructure once their own equivalent had been struck first

              What do you think about the US/Israel strikes on historical buildings, electrical infrastructure, schools/uni, civilian research centers? What do you think of hegseth literally saying they're here to bring death and destruction ?

              I think the US got drunk on their own supply of "we can do whatever the fuck we want because we have the biggest bombs and the cultural superiority".

              > I read all the reports from them, they aren't condemning USA about those attacks,

              Well you clearly didn't read much outside of US/Israel propaganda

              • Jensson

                today at 4:08 PM

                > Well you clearly didn't read much outside of US/Israel propaganda

                I read every update on Aljazeera, they are very representative of the views of the middle east and aren't American or Israeli propaganda. To me it seems like it is you who only read the propaganda.

                • ceejayoz

                  today at 5:06 PM

                  > they are very representative of the views of the middle east

                  Al Jazeera is primarily funded by the government of Qatar, an American ally and (currently) enemy of Iran. It reflects Qatar's views, not that of "the middle east" as a whole.

                  https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/18/iran-war-qatar-ras-laffan-na...

                • lm28469

                  today at 4:16 PM

                  > I read every update on Aljazeera

                  It's a newspaper not analysts reports. Did you read one of the pro israeli op-ed by any chance, I can't find anything stating Iran is "crazy"

                  > Analysts say US threat of ‘no quarter’ for Iran violates international law

                  > The US-Israeli war on Iran is illegal and goes against the interests of the American people.

                  > Iran war updates: Israel refinery bombed as >>> retaliatory <<< strikes reverberate

                  > Iran has ratcheted up the pressure on several Gulf nations by attacking their energy facilities in >>> retaliation <<< for an Israeli strike on its South Pars gasfield

                  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/14/analysts-say-us-thr...

                  https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/8/we-the-american-...

                  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/19/iran-war-l...

                  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/19/wrap-iran-ratchets-...

        • ImPostingOnHN

          today at 3:34 PM

          > Even Russia and Ukraine doesn't bomb third party countries in war just for supporting the other side, that is a crazy stupid thing to do and any country behaving like that should never ever have nukes.

          To the extent this might be true, it seems like it would be even more true of the two countries that unprovokedly bombed a third party country to start the war in the first place.

          • Jensson

            today at 3:59 PM

            > two countries that unprovokedly

            It isn't unprovoked, Iran current regime has chanted "Death to America" since its founding. USA has plenty of reasons to attack here which is why you don't see more international outcry or support for Iran. Iran are on their own.

            • lm28469

              today at 4:05 PM

              > USA has plenty of reasons to attack

              Yet none have been provided, remember the anthrax scam at the united nations? At least they put some efforts into it

              • Jensson

                today at 4:11 PM

                They don't need to provide a reason, its probably related to greed etc, but greed is still a rational reason. Iran attacking their neighbors is not rational here, it just makes the middle east hate them more.

                I am not talking about international laws here, just the norms everyone follows in wars. Everyone breaks the international laws, but the norms of not attacking third parties etc are there for rational reasons, since you don't gain anything for doing so its just stupid and causes damage and strife and hurts you for doing it.

                • lm28469

                  today at 4:21 PM

                  > They don't need to provide a reason

                  Of course, since they did not ask for the congress approval, which is already against their own constitution. That's exactly the kind of things you do when you're a good guy doing the right thing

                  > but the norms of not attacking third parties etc are there for rational reasons, since you don't gain anything for doing so its just stupid and causes damage and strife and hurts you for doing it.

                  What norms? No wars = no rules of war, they started something they can't control anymore

                  They gain plenty from doing it in term of leverage, nobody attacked Iran in such way until now because it was well understood that this is exactly how it would play out

            • ImPostingOnHN

              today at 5:28 PM

              Seems the US and israel have been at least as unfriendly recently.

              In any case, somebody chanting a thing isn't causus belli, nor is publicly wanting someone to die.

              > why you don't see more international outcry or support for Iran

              What you don't see is international support for the USA or israel's war on Iran, hence why the strait of hormuz is effectively closed right now.

        • megous

          today at 5:11 PM

          What actual terrorism they funded that was actually deadlier than what US created in Iraq with ISIS (created as a result of pretty much the same, let's get some country stripped by force of some [imagined] WMDs, US adventure)?

      • today at 3:52 PM

    • ImPostingOnHN

      today at 2:55 PM

      Generally, the one who causes the problem should fix it. Especially when the problem they caused is hurting their friends.

      It takes a really good friend to not only accept and forgive the hurt caused, but to help fix the problem, too. Usually an apology from the problem-causer must come first.

      I think what we're seeing is that the USA has un-good-friended so many countries that it has no good friends left with the military capabilities to help. It has allies maybe, but nobody who would do such a favor after being victimized by the asker and the problems they caused, without even so much as an apology.

      It certainly doesn't help that the USA is asking for help, but probably wants to boss around anybody who volunteers, and it is doing none of the work itself. Sounds like a toxic team.

      > Iran is everyones problem

      Iran is not everyone's problem. The effects of israel and the USA's war of choice on Iran are everyone's problem. What we're seeing now is not a result of anything Iran did, but rather something the USA and israel did. The worse the effects get, the more blame will be heaped upon the USA and israel. To that end, most countries are likely of the attitude that they have already incurred enough costs from the USA and israel's war, and that the USA and israel had better fix the problem they caused ASAP.

      • chasd00

        today at 5:16 PM

        there are no friends at the global scale just alliances. If Europe doesn't want to help then there's no forcing them to. Conversely, if the US manages to get the strait open and oil flowing there's no stopping them from requiring Europe to pay a little extra for the trouble. Fair or not, who's going to stop the other side? You can't exactly ask to speak to the manager.

        • ImPostingOnHN

          today at 6:58 PM

          If the USA manages to get the strait open and oil flowing, then allies might be satisfied with the harms the USA caused, even if there is no apology, much less restitution. At that point, we will be back to the status quo.

          If, at that point, the USA perpetrates any sort of further economic attacks on allies, then of course they will respond appropriately.

    • detaro

      today at 4:15 PM

      Again, how should the UK use the Navy here?

• marcosdumay

  today at 3:05 PM

  NATO countries need to keep their military close to the Noth Atlantic to protect Greenland from recent unexpected threats.

• georgefrowny

  today at 2:37 PM

  As the UK chief of defense staff commented drily: "we have an aircraft carrier, it's called Cyprus".

• ceejayoz

  today at 5:04 PM

  > Unrelated but the UK has 2 aircraft carriers (but not enough planes, but that's for a different time). Why aren't they being deployed?

  Because the UK isn't really in the war, and doesn't want to be?

• toraway

  today at 3:28 PM

  They move a carrier into a vulnerable position in the Strait, where an attack by a tiny boat could both result in causalities and draw the UK into another protracted war in the Middle East with no clear exit condition and even more casualties?

  And for what, exactly, a pat on the back from Trump? (who will then inevitably turn on them after a week and blame them for anything that goes wrong in the war.)

  If escorting ship traffic was so straightforward with only upside, the US would be doing it already. Instead of trying to get someone else to take that risk.

• blitzar

  today at 2:47 PM

  > this war

  There is no war; there is a speical military operation, an excursion or a preemptive retaliatory defensive strike.

• lkramer

  today at 5:12 PM

  Because even the UK is getting fed up with Trump? They literally started preparing to deploy on of the carriers to the Gulf and Trump basically told them to fuck off because they were "late" to the war? Now he's changed his mind again, who gives a damn? He can reap what he has sowed.

• detaro

  today at 2:25 PM

  deploy and do what exactly? Get involved and potentially sacrifice a few UK soldiers to stroke Trumps ego? Sit around and look pretty? Having a carrier there doesn't magically make problems go away.

  • georgefrowny

    today at 2:47 PM

    Quite. It will in fact make a lot of problems for you if it gets attacked as then you need to decide if you've just had war declared on you and have to decide what to do about that.

    Escorting shipping through the Straight isn't like helping an old lady across the road, it's doing it at a red crossing light while pointing an AK47 through the windscreen of the cars with your finger on the trigger daring them to test your resolve.

  • lm28469

    today at 2:50 PM

    > deploy and do what exactly?

    To get sunk by a $20k drone, the most likely outcome at that point

    • jandrewrogers

      today at 5:20 PM

      Cheap drones are only effective against relatively soft targets. Weak penetration and small warheads limit their utility.

      Many countries already have long-range drones designed to attack ships i.e. anti-ship missiles. They cost $1-2M a piece. It would still require a minimum of many direct hits to sink a modern aircraft carrier, as commonly demonstrated for SINKEX.

    • Jensson

      today at 3:09 PM

      How would a drone sink a carrier? If Iran could do that they would already have sunk the American carriers.

      The risk at the straights aren't drones but torpedoes and mines and attack boats.

      • lm28469

        today at 3:47 PM

        > How would a drone sink a carrier?

        Ask Ukraine, they've been sinking russian warships left and right, even in their own ports

        • Jensson

          today at 3:54 PM

          A drone payload can only sink a small ship, there is no way a single drone can sink a carrier. And the amount of drones Iraq can launch today isn't enough to get through a carriers defenses.

          Russia-Ukraine war is different since there are many more drones and neither side has air superiority. Also most of those kills were done by missiles or sea drones, not the shahed drones Iran has that costs 20k.

          • lm28469

            today at 3:59 PM

            Iran has surface and submarine drones too, I know you cant sink a carrier with a shahed

• Ekaros

  today at 2:22 PM

  You do not put your resources in danger unless you are actually ready to commit to it. And I mean possible loss of them and then entering to much hotter war.

  • jacquesm

    today at 6:05 PM

    If only someone in the Oval Office was this smart.

• today at 2:17 PM

Maybe it was just an old stupid treason? Someone against the war and… hard to believe there are no rules about location.

• giarc

  today at 2:47 PM

  I don't know about Strava, but my Apple Watch will detect when I'm going on a walk or a bike ride and ask if I want to track it. I just instinctively say yes. Strava might do the same and so it could just be habit for the sailor and a dumb mistake.

  • krick

    today at 5:57 PM

    You don't need to confirm anything. You just configure it once to upload your runs that you record on a Garmin watch or whatever, and forget. It's not impossible to use Garmin watch without any online accounts and uploading your data anywhere, but as it is with all wearables today, they intentionally make your life harder for it. Not to mention that most people who run regularly use Strava or something equivalent to track your workouts anyway, so one really wouldn't think much about it, unless explicitly forced by officers to disconnect everything. And, honestly, given how easy it is to find an aircraft carrier (for god's sake, even a civilian can do that!), I doubt that it even worth it. Le Monde is just making cheap scandal out of nothing. As always.

• Theodores

  today at 2:46 PM

  Maybe it was fake. Someone with a water-borne drone and Starlink could spoof it, in order to throw those pesky Iranians off the scent. Unless you were on the aircraft carrier, had satellite imagery or could physically see it, it would be hard to prove that it was a fake. Any attempt at debunking would meet fierce resistance from Strava bros.

  • blitzar

    today at 5:12 PM

    Someone with a computer sitting basically anywhere in the world could spoof it.

Many questions:

I can assume Strava is GDPR compliant and would not publish this information without the sailors concent?

Does the French military not stress in their training the dangers of these data disclosures?

Why does the carriers network not have adequate measures against this sort of data exfiltration?

Why is Le Monde tracking a french sailors location data?

• philipwhiuk

  today at 6:31 PM

  > I can assume Strava is GDPR compliant and would not publish this information without the sailors concent?

  Historically there was a problem where user's data was aggregated into a global view. But these days you'd have to follow the user on Strava to get this sort of track.

  I suspect that a journalist at Le Monde has a naval buddy on Strava and posted the story.

  • PeterStuer

    today at 6:38 PM

    So how did the carriers network not block Strava? I doubt the sailors watch was direct to satellite.

    And why would a Le Monde 'journalist' dox his 'buddy' and expose and thus endanger the ship? Anything for a click?

    • philipwhiuk

      today at 8:05 PM

      > So how did the carriers network not block Strava?

      I'm sure someone in the tech team is getting questioned on this.

  • loeg

    today at 6:51 PM

    Surely the GPDR does not prevent users from consenting to share their data with a public audience.

    • philipwhiuk

      today at 8:06 PM

      It doesn't, but the effect of gaining consent and being opt-in vastly reduced the data. Strava also made it (in 2019) so you'd need at least N samples for it to be visible rather than simply a single user.