- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,879
- Reaction score
- 12,685
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said.
Are some of you done bitching and moaning without the facts not to mention going off topic? The reason encryption was nonexistent in some cases is because it slows things down. Sometimes you have to act here and now and you have to take some risk.
All communications lines are to be encrypted. This is doctrine. Encryption does not slow video feeds down to any real noticable point. VTCs between commanders and Generals in the war zone with the Pentagon are encrypted. The video feed from the UAVs seems to have been exempt from this rule since the 90s because tapping into a video feed wouldn't give an enemy time to react anyway. This was an over sight and one made because the decision makers on this lacked imagination. I guarantee that our UAVs will be fitted with encryption in the near future.
haha.
God forbid the voice of the States get heard over the commanding of the Fed.
People forget... the North came down here.
It was not a fight to liberate black people. It was a fight to finally put the Federal government as the sole-ruler of the lands. State's right today is almost an illusion.
The U.S. is apparently responded to these findings by attempting to add encryption to video feeds from drones. However, ready available encryption systems may not be compatible with the proprietary technology used by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. for communication between the drone and those remotely controlling the aircraft. Furthermore, encryption may slow down the sharing of time-sensitive information.
Moral Machines: Hacking Drones
The U.S. is apparently responded to these findings by attempting to add encryption to video feeds from drones. However, ready available encryption systems may not be compatible with the proprietary technology used by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. for communication between the drone and those remotely controlling the aircraft. Furthermore, encryption may slow down the sharing of time-sensitive information.
The US killed three Islamist terrorists in the third airstrike n two days in Pakistan's Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan.
The strike, carried out by unmanned Predator or Reaper attack aircraft, hit a Taliban safe house in the Datta Khel region in North Waziristan. Several Hellfire missiles were reported to have been launched in the airstrike.
"The US drone missiles hit a house in the mountains," a Pakistani intelligence official told Dawn. "We have reports of three militants killed and five injured. The house was completely destroyed."
US intelligence officials contacted by The Long War Journal would not comment on the target of the attack.
The Datta Khel region was the focus of two airstrikes yesterday which killed a senior al Qaeda commander and six fighters, as well as 11 Haqqani Network fighters.
The al Qaeda commander was identified as Zuhaib al Zahibi. A senior US military intelligence official described Zahibi as "a general officer equivalent" in the Lashkar al Zil, or the Shadow Army.
As much as I like winning, I think when we take the honor out of combat (i.e. remote controlled planes) we're asking for bad karma. Plain and simple. But then again, how do you fight a honorless coward if you're playing by the rules? You cheat.
Tapping into drones’ video feeds was just the start. The U.S. military’s primary system for bringing overhead surveillance down to soldiers and Marines on the ground is also vulnerable to electronic interception, multiple military sources tell Danger Room. That means militants have the ability to see through the eyes of all kinds of combat aircraft — from traditional fighters and bombers to unmanned spy planes. The problem is in the process of being addressed. But for now, an enormous security breach is even larger than previously thought.
Actually it was. People like to say that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War. People like to say that the South seceded from the Union in order to preserve states' rights, not slavery. And that Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. I have no idea why this has become fashionable but it defies what really happened.
The difference of labor systems was the point of conflict for the powerful in the North and the powerful in the South. The expanding industry of the North depended on a wage labor system, and the Southern plantation depended on slavery. As both sides eyed the newe territories in Texas and the West, these differences in systems, offerred more than enconomic competition. As the conflict of words intensified, easch system came to stand for a way of life. Slavery meant agriculture, Southern gentility, honor, the traditions and values of past generations of planters. In the North, wage labor meant free labor, free land, free men, opportunity, progress, and industry.
Politicians and media began the rhetoric work up that led to the Civil War. By the time Lincoln was elected, the West had leaned entirely towards the wage labor concept of the North. This signaled the ultimate loss of that battleground. To Southern plantation owners, it seemed as another blow towards their class and way of life. It all began over economics. If this is true, then what part of slavery are we supposed to pretend had nothing to do with it?
Now, after the Civil War, the North would go on to prove that freeing slaves had nothing to do with equality. Society went on to fail them for another 100 years. But the Civil War was about the slaves and the economic system they represented.
It's Obama's fault.
Actually it was. People like to say that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War. People like to say that the South seceded from the Union in order to preserve states' rights, not slavery. And that Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. I have no idea why this has become fashionable but it defies what really happened.
The difference of labor systems was the point of conflict for the powerful in the North and the powerful in the South. The expanding industry of the North depended on a wage labor system, and the Southern plantation depended on slavery. As both sides eyed the newe territories in Texas and the West, these differences in systems, offerred more than enconomic competition. As the conflict of words intensified, easch system came to stand for a way of life. Slavery meant agriculture, Southern gentility, honor, the traditions and values of past generations of planters. In the North, wage labor meant free labor, free land, free men, opportunity, progress, and industry.
Politicians and media began the rhetoric work up that led to the Civil War. By the time Lincoln was elected, the West had leaned entirely towards the wage labor concept of the North. This signaled the ultimate loss of that battleground. To Southern plantation owners, it seemed as another blow towards their class and way of life. It all began over economics. If this is true, then what part of slavery are we supposed to pretend had nothing to do with it?
Now, after the Civil War, the North would go on to prove that freeing slaves had nothing to do with equality. Society went on to fail them for another 100 years. But the Civil War was about the slaves and the economic system they represented.
Then it was a war to destroy the Southern way of life?
Maybe it was laced in the rhetoric associated with liberating slaves, but it was not a war for the goodwill of Blacks.
In ways it was.
It's the powerful that shake the world. They are the ones that move civilizations into conflict and create most wars, especially where capitalism is involved. The powerful in the South were the plantation owners. With the North winning influence in Texas and the rest of the west, the South saw even more encroachment. Like the South, the powerful of the North were the business owners. Their economy was based on wage labor and they were denied expansion in the South. Add in a few other things and the American Civil War goes down in history.
Of course not. One only has to look at th period between the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Movement to prove this.
The North was just as racist as the South. The only difference was that they had the luxury of declaring their superiority because their society was based on wage labor and not associated with slavery. The hypocrisy here is that the North and Europe greatly benefited from the South's cotton industry. Cotton was absolutely huge to exportation, which the North was associated with. But in the end, two contrasting systems of labor was not going to last in a country where unification depended on common laws and order. Slavery and the business of it was a huge factor between the South and the North.
Think of it like this....if business and economy wasn't involved would the American Civil War have occurred? Probably not (at least not when it did). Business and economy made slavery a political focus.
All communications lines are to be encrypted. This is doctrine. Encryption does not slow video feeds down to any real noticable point. VTCs between commanders and Generals in the war zone with the Pentagon are encrypted. The video feed from the UAVs seems to have been exempt from this rule since the 90s because tapping into a video feed wouldn't give an enemy time to react anyway. This was an over sight and one made because the decision makers on this lacked imagination. I guarantee that our UAVs will be fitted with encryption in the near future.
The point was not that they aren't fitted with encryption, the point was sometimes the users didn't want to encryption to slow down a real time operation. If you want me to believe all the industry experts and folks in the present military are wrong and you are the only right one I don't buy it.
I think there might be another element at play here.
Data is only sensitive when it's pertinent ... For example, if the drone is reporting its position (telemetry), that information is only applicable for that instant. Someone who intercepts it can't do anything with it .. because the circumstance has changed. So, the data, though sensitive, does not need to be protected because, by the time it is intercepted, it is no longer true and, thus, no longer of any value.
Similarly, if the drone were downlinking photos of terrain as it passes over, that info doesn't need to be protected because it has no practical value. By the time they receive the picture, the drone is no longer there.
I would expect that a data analysis was done to determine the need to protect the data based not on the information, but on the potential for exploitation.
Applying blanket rules to unique situations inevitably leads to the wrong conclusions.
This data could be extremely useful to the Taliban. Looking at this telemetry would let you know the aircraft's location letting you give advance warning for your fighters to hide, or even simply drop their weapons and act like civilians. Even better, you know for certain if they have identified you, letting you relocate before an attack can be commenced. You can determine how effective your camouflage is against aerial photography and test new schemes if your current stuff doesn't work. Finally, in a combat situation, knowing you have been located lets you scatter or hit the dirt to minimize casualties, especially if the aircraft is performing the attack.
That is what I came up with in 5 minutes of writing that post. I am sure the Taliban, who bought the receivers in the first place, put a little more thought into it. The Enigma was cracked in WW2 solely because the Germans broadcasted the same weather data both encrypted and in the clear, leading to a known plain-text attack. In fighting a war of information, small mistakes can have large impacts.
I'm sorry the fact that some data was not encrypted indicating a total dumb dumb meltdown of pre-planning, engineering, and operations in the field, just doesn't add up.
There have to be good reasons why some data is not encrypted, and one must always be aware the media will exaggerate a story to make a sell.
Hell the FAUX network has been caught completely fabricating things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?