More on Peaceful Use [In A Pinch]

Some folks have asked me for a bit more explanation of the whole issue of peaceful use of the SCANSTAR satellite, which is the premise for the mystery of In A Pinch.

This was an actual concern during preparation of the real satellite mission, which I may now disclose is called RADARSAT. I avoided that name in the book because, since it’s a brand name, I preferred to avoid any possibility of a breach of trademark law. The name is in the public domain, the govt. of Canada being a full partner in the commercial enterprise, so I don’t mind sharing this information herein.

RADARSAT originated primarily as a replacement for aircraft in the surveillance of the navigation passages in the north, by imaging the ice. This information is not secret, as it’s not intended for military purposes, although there is no fundamental reason it could not be. The reality is that RADASAT is not particularly useful tactically or even strategically. First: the delay between taking the data and delivering a finished image is too long for tactical use. Second: the images are not photographs in visible light, but rather representations of the surface roughness, which has limited strategic value. In the book, I do discuss one potential use.

The main reason to use RADARSAT instead of some system designed for tactical use, such as a high-definition photo-reconnaissance satellite, is that access to the latter is carefully restricted, making it very difficult for any insurgent group to get images. This is why it was recognized that there was some risk of use by someone without legal sanction. The government made it very clear that use of the images was for peaceful purposes only.

This peaceful-use policy enabled the industrial partner, who serves the clients directly, to refuse service to any prospective client who appears on any sort of black list, such as a known terrorist organization, or an insurgency threatening an ally of Canada. However, there is no law prohibiting someone from hiring someone else to order images, and the client contract does not require disclosure of such a third party, hence the industrial partner has no way to know if a client is actually a front for some individual or group who would otherwise be refused service.

Despite many debates and much research, which I witnessed only as an observer, the project office could find no legal way to force a client to disclose the identity of a third party, short of a major change to all contracts governing commercial operation and client service. The cost and schedule impact to do so was considered unacceptable, so it was decided to accept the risk and proceed without change.

As I mentioned in the book, I am unaware of any actual case of a third party being connected with any nefarious activities, but one never knows…