[HN Gopher] A helicopter and boats to perform a rare ceremony at...
___________________________________________________________________
A helicopter and boats to perform a rare ceremony at the Tower of
London
Author : zeristor
Score : 89 points
Date : 2024-03-09 12:28 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ianvisits.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ianvisits.co.uk)
| throw0101d wrote:
| Some videos of previous events (no helicopters though):
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAS9j1BWGiE
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThRYOVxUTJg
|
| Seems that the ceremony occurs a couple of times per year, and in
| recent years allied navy ships also partake in it as some
| friendly pomp:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constable_of_the_Tower#Constab...
| wdb wrote:
| Probably not Dutch navy ships lol
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| > What was once a hated tax on mariners is now an exciting
| ceremony performed very occasionally, usually when there's a
| navel vessel visiting London.
|
| Did I just overlook it in the article, or why is this event
| occurring this week? Some special visitor in town?
| throw0101d wrote:
| It occurs anytime a Royal Navy ship visits London, which is
| once or twice a year. (In recent years allied navy ships also
| partake in the ceremony.)
| yawnxyz wrote:
| What kind of ships usually visit London / why visit (since
| it's kind of land locked)?
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Greenwich used to be a very important Royal Navy training
| centre, so it is not too unsurprising in that context that
| there might be some errands to do just a little further up
| the Thames.
| MarcusE1W wrote:
| There is a small navy base just outside Tower Bridge. But
| every now and then some larger Warships moor next to the
| Belfast (am Museum ship). That's quite central already and
| also Tower Bridge has to open for them, which is probably
| part of the fun.
|
| Sometimes a cruise ship moores there as well. It seems to
| be popular.
| ValentineC wrote:
| I looked through the entire article, but couldn't find out _why_
| there would be a helicopter or boats this time. Searching for the
| ceremony on Google News didn 't yield any results either.
|
| Would anyone know why?
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| I think it's a recognition that the Royal Navy also has pilots
| and not just sailors.
|
| Also, army and navy recruitment goals haven't been met since
| 2010. Can't hurt to put on a bit of a show!
| Citizen_Lame wrote:
| How will the show help? Army and navy recruitment has been
| outsourced to a private company. They are not good at
| recruiting, either intentionally or simply incompetent.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| It could inspire people to apply of their own accord rather
| than being approached by the armed forces recruitment (I
| didn't know it had been outsourced; that is interesting).
| It's a very plausible situation - a military demonstration
| locally was very enjoyable for me, and I would absolutely
| go again. If they were trying to recruit me, though, they
| shot their bolt by admitting in response to my queries that
| their encrypted radios utilised, shall we say, less than
| ideal cyphers :)
| some_random wrote:
| Maybe they were hoping you'd join in order to fix them /s
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Unfortunately, there was apparently no such eagerness to
| improve the equipment. The officer who demonstrated the
| gadget to me did not seem at all concerned that his
| platoon had to have physical access to a radio in order
| to revoke its encryption key! One might like to think
| that the foe will be an officer and a gentleman, yet
| somehow I don't think they are going to publish those
| revocation certificates on the British Army's behalf
| should they manage to obtain one of our radios...!
| some_random wrote:
| Wait how else would it be done? If you lose control of a
| radio you don't revoke the key you rotate it on all the
| radios you still control. The only reason you'd ever
| revoke a key is for administrative reasons (like you're
| handing the units off to someone else or something) in
| which case you'll have physical access just fine.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| To be specific (as best I can; this conversation was
| about five years ago now), the radios used a form of
| symmetric encryption. The company would have squads of
| under ten soldiers, working covertly behind enemy lines
| in sabotage and reconnaissance. I don't remember whether
| the radios could communicate with each other only within
| the squads or across their entire platoon, but the thing
| that stood out to me was this: should a single soldier be
| captured (they'd be in enemy territory after all), each
| other soldier would have to _meet together in person_ to
| reset the encryption keys.
|
| It's hard to believe, but if I understood the chap at the
| military exhibition correctly, the enemy could use a
| captured device to listen in to every communication among
| the squad/platoon, which would presumably make it
| perilous for them to reconvene again in secret -
| precisely what they would need to do in order to cycle
| the keys.
|
| If a more PKI-style mode of encryption was used instead,
| there could be a 'dead-man switch' or emergency button on
| the radio that would send a revocation certificate to all
| the other soldiers' radios if one was captured, causing
| the platoon to immediately cease encrypting their signals
| for the compromised set.
| dmurray wrote:
| Seems like a really hard problem though. A dead-man
| switch is likely to get triggered unintentionally if
| you're literally in a firefight. You could improve a bit
| with some kind of consensus protocol - "we all agree
| these six radios have not been compromised" - but
| coordinating that in practice seems hard, and vulnerable
| to an enemy capturing a single radio and initiating the
| consensus protocol.
| some_random wrote:
| In a tactical context, it's a huge ask to get intel value
| out of a radio in a timeframe that'll be useful. On top
| of that, compromised comms are almost certainly better
| than no comms. Military radio comms are pretty good (at
| least in the US), what I though OP was probably referring
| to was P25 which is a civilian protocol with several
| issues [1][2]
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re9nG81Vft8
|
| [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2se6th_6eYc
|
| (I was there for Matt's 2019 talk, haven't actually
| watched the 2024 one)
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Very interesting; thanks for the references. I'm no
| tactical radio expert, and can't quite remember, but I
| _think_ the radio I 'm referring to must have been the
| EZ-PRR[1], as that's the only similar-looking one that is
| reportedly in use by the British Army.
|
| > compromised comms are almost certainly better than no
| comms.
|
| Is this true when undercover though? As a layman, I would
| assume it is better for each soldier to attempt to find
| each other at first (like any other human beings, they'd
| have their 'Schelling points'), and failing that, attempt
| to get home safely on their own. The alternative -
| arranging a rendezvous over a potentially compromised
| comms method - could get them all killed or captured
| together. Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
|
| [1]:
| https://www.cryptomuseum.com/radio/selex/ezprr/index.htm
| livueta wrote:
| Makes me wonder what exactly they were using and whether
| they may have just been using it wrong - even plain old
| p25 has otar:
| https://www.motorolasolutions.com/en_xa/products/two-way-
| rad...
| dambi0 wrote:
| Perhaps you and the officer had different perspectives on
| the threat models under which revocation of radio
| encryption keys might happen? Maybe there are additional
| controls in place?
| martynr wrote:
| Could it rather be that genZ are risk averse and choose not
| to volunteer to be shot at? Or even that they have greater
| moral concerns than earlier generations? (No judgement on
| that implied, complexities acknowledged)
|
| That said, personally can't see how a show would be much
| help either.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 10 years ago they had a larger ceremony as part of the 70th
| anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic; perhaps this is for
| the 80th?
| koliber wrote:
| What happens to the barrel of fine alcoholic drink after it gets
| handed to the Constable? This article is missing the most
| important details.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _What happens to the barrel of fine alcoholic drink after it
| gets handed to the Constable?_
|
| It is imbibed:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAS9j1BWGiE&t=1m44s
| ttepasse wrote:
| The Yeoman Warders - the Beefeaters - have their own
| accommodation in the Tower's Outer Ward and they have also
| their own pub:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman_Warders_Club
| zeristor wrote:
| They should call it The Queen's Head
| allywilson wrote:
| Why?
| zeristor wrote:
| Divorced.
|
| Beheaded.
|
| Died.
|
| Divorced.
|
| Beheaded.
|
| Survived.
| irrational wrote:
| What does that mean?
| JustARandomGuy wrote:
| It is what happened to each of the wives of King Henry
| the 8th. It's a famous rhyme intended to make it easy to
| remember the order of what happened to them:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wives_of_Henry_VIII
| kemayo wrote:
| It's a slightly-tasteless joke resting on two facts:
|
| 1. The [King's / Queen's] Head is a common pub name in
| the UK.
|
| 2. Several queens have been executed by beheading at the
| Tower of London.
| azalemeth wrote:
| 3. The word "head" in a nautical context also refers to
| the ship's toilet.
| Y-bar wrote:
| 4. Beer head is also another name for the foam
| dctoedt wrote:
| My strong suspicion is that the sailors involved in this would
| much rather be on liberty than having to dress up and perform
| what amounts to a little play for the tourists. But maybe things
| are different than they were BITD ....
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I'd imagine that it's voluntary. The last thing you want in a
| show for the press and tourists is a bunch of grumpy looking
| sailors, but I also imagine there are a not insignificant
| number of armed forces personnel who appreciate the getting in
| the limelight now and then.
| alistairSH wrote:
| What makes you think they'd otherwise have leave?
|
| All militaries do pomp and ceremony. Maybe a bit more in the
| UK. But it's part of the job description.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _What makes you think they'd otherwise have leave?_
|
| Personal experience during port visits after time at sea (in
| the U.S. Navy).
| scns wrote:
| They have a party thrown for them afterwards.
| tempodox wrote:
| > ...when there's a navel vessel visiting London.
|
| I'm imagining a tiny ship swimming in a few drops of water being
| balanced in someone's navel. An apt entertainment while bribing
| the Constable with select alcoholic beverages.
| creativeSlumber wrote:
| Basically a very fancy alcohol delivery?
| weinzierl wrote:
| Apropos ceremonies and Tower Bridge: I heard that everyone with a
| legitimate reason could request the bridge to be opened. The
| usual reason being wanting to sail your boat under.
|
| https://www.towerbridge.org.uk/lift-times
| cratermoon wrote:
| Ceremony of the Constable's Dues: https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-
| of-london/whats-on/the-constabl...
| divbzero wrote:
| Is there a motivation behind having a helicopter join this time?
| Or more just "Heck, why not?"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-09 23:00 UTC)