Senin, 10 September 2012

Careful Who You Friend: Taliban Posing as 'Attractive Women' Online

Tech-savvy Talibs have posed as pretty girls on Facebook to lure Australian troops into giving away military secrets. That's one disturbing ' but not totally surprising ' conclusion of a recent Aussie government review of military social media usage.

After all, this sort of thing has happened before.

'The Taliban have used pictures of attractive women as the front of their Facebook profiles and have befriended soldiers,' the March review warned, according to the Australian Website News.com.au.

Soldiers 'did not recognize that people using fake profiles ' could capture information and movements,' the review found.

Canberra is particularly sensitive to tracking and infiltration by extremists after an apparent Afghan army trainee killed three Australian troops in southern Afghanistan earlier this month ' part of a wave of insider attacks.

The U.S. Army learned about insurgents' social media tactics the hard way in 2007, when soldiers in Iraq uploaded photos of Apache gunship helicopters ' photos that included embedded GPS data. 'The enemy was able to determine the exact location of the helicopters inside the compound and conduct a mortar attack, destroying four of the AH-64 Apaches,' the Army admitted this year.

'Many individuals who use social media are extremely trusting,' the Australian report concluded. Soldiers approve friend requests from strangers, 'overtly' relying on the privacy settings to protect them. The settings, which do not remove all useful data and in any event can change unannounced, create 'a false sense of security,' the report stated.

But even savvy netizens can get duped. Just ask U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, the top NATO officer ' a.k.a., Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR. Stavridis is an avid Facebook and Twitter user who has dragged many of his senior-ranking peers into social media.

But a few of Stavridis' pals ended up friending fake Facebook accounts set up in the admiral's name. 'There have been several fake SACEUR pages,' the alliance pointed out. At least one of them was reportedly set up by Chinese spies in an effort to gather personal details about Stavridis and other high-ranking Western officials.

It's not clear that the Chinese hackers have learned anything useful about Stavridis, or that the Taliban has attacked Australian troops based on Facebook intel. But these were only opening salvos in the social media wars. The next acts of digital espionage could inflict real damage.



Sabtu, 08 September 2012

The Air Force's Bug-Eyed Plan for New Spy Gear

The Air Force wants its new spy sensors to work like a bee's eye.

Here's why: Most of the military's optical sensors, which convert an image into an digital signal, are designed by drawing inspiration from human optics. This means that our machines have so far been largely limited to seeing only what we can see. The problem is, the human eye isn't great. Even if you're blessed with 20:20 vision, you miss a lot of stuff because our eyes can only detect a small proportion of the all the light waves that are actually bouncing off objects.

Superficially of course, our vision allows us to differentiate between colors, how close something is, and whether it's coming towards us or away from us ' but other animals can see much more.

If you were to dump an average human in the wilderness somewhere, he'd have practically no idea where in the world he was, if he were to rely on just his sight. But do the same to an arthropod, say a bee or a locust, and it would stand a much better chance at finding its way back to base. That's because their optical systems can see one very important thing that we can't: polarized light wave patterns.

The pattern of a polarized light wave is such that it indicates the location of where the light is coming from and the insect understands its own geo-location in relation to the polarized light's origin. In this way, the insect has a built in, autonomous, and sophisticated way of navigating from point A to point B.

What if we could develop sensors that work more like a bee's eye than a human one? Navigation systems would be autonomous, they wouldn't need to beam their signal to second party and wait to be told where it was. It'd just know. In other words, they'd work fine by themselves ' no loosing the sat nav signal when you're car's flanked by downtown skyscrapers or as you go through a tunnel.

Well, that's exactly what the U.S. military wants to do.  In the latest call for research proposals from small business, the U.S. Air Force is asking for someone to develop 'biologically-inspired integrated vision systems.'

In creating the next generation of imaging sensors, the Air Force hopes to improve the navigational capabilities, target detection and range of its military hardware. It's looking to back a program to create an unified system where data is input, crunched, and used by the same computer to allow 'autonomous behavior.' This would make the whole process of navigation altogether faster and more efficient and reduce the need for boots on the ground.

Insect vision also differs from ours in color differentiation, they're able to detect broad-spectrum light waves, which means they can see colors that we can't. When we see one shade of red, they might see several distinct shades. They're altogether more skilled at discriminating where one object starts and another begins. This is something that the Air Force is also enthusiastic to include in the project, expressing interest in 'camouflage-breaking techniques.'

Turning to the animal kingdom as a muse for technological design is nothing new. All kinds of creatures have been used over the years. Unmanned vehicle control was learned from echolocating bats and the micro hooks of seeds that stick to animal fur gave way to the inception of Velcro. And then, of course, there are the robots modeled after pack mules and cheetahs that can already outrun the faster human. If this Air Force project works out as planned, the machines will be able to see a whole lot better than people, too.

 

 



Jumat, 07 September 2012

Sudan's Dictator Wants Satellites to Stop Spying on His Crimes

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has issues with satellites. It's not that he would mind some of his own, if Sudan suddenly developed a working space program. It's rather those pesky foreign satellites snooping on Bashir's war crimes and state-orchestrated genocide that he wants to get rid of.

On Wednesday, Bashir called on the African Union (AU) to find ways to 'protect' the continent from spy satellites. The dictator urged the AU to 'legislate protection of [Africa's] space,' as the state-owned Sudan Vision website reported, in tandem with developing a new unified space agency. 'I'm calling for the biggest project, an African space agency,' Bashir said during remarks at a telecommunications conference in Khartoum. 'Africa must have its space agency,' he added.

The dictator ' who is wanted by the International Criminal Court regarding his role in the Darfur genocide ' has, er, particular reasons for wanting the spy satellites to stay out. Last year, satellites from private space monopoly DigitalGlobe uncovered what appeared to be evidence of mass killings carried out during Sudan's ongoing civil war. But whatever Bashir's motivations, a continent-wide space agency actually isn't a bad idea.

But let's take Bashir's motivations first. Images of his crimes are still being collected by DigitalGlobe satellites with funding from the Satellite Sentinel Project, propped up by actor George Clooney and activist John Prendergast. Those taken over the past year include what appears to be mass graves and bombed villages, as well as Sudanese troops and artillery on the move. These images were later compiled by the ICC as evidence against Bashir's defense minister. Like Bashir, that minister, Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein, is also wanted for arrest by the ICC for his role in the genocide in Darfur. In the most recent set of images, Sudanese aircraft are seen based within striking distance of refugee camps.

Bashir's call to legislate the satellites out of the sky is, well, absurd, for one important reason. Satellites can't violate Khartoum's airspace if they're orbiting above the planet. Were Clooney to fly a spy plane over Sudan, he might get shot down, but DigitalGlobe's satellites are free to go where they please. Now just try stopping the U.S., which operates a secretive arsenal of satellites, and which plans to network its orbital spies into an all-seeing panopticon. You can't, unless you want to shoot the satellites down with missiles. Sudan definitely cannot do that.

Nor can Sudan even get into space on its own ' not even close. The extent of Khartoum's space program is minimal at most. According to the Space Generation Advisory Council Sudan, the country is limited to studying geographic surveying, researching a 'small satellite for multipurpose use' and working with foreign agencies including the Pakistan Space and Upper Atmospheric Research Commission.

And yet an all-Africa space program is an intriguing idea, though problematic if Bashir is packaging it to the African Union while dodging responsibility for his crimes. There's no indigenous space launch capability anywhere on the continent. South Africa's space program is the most advanced, but it can't lift equipment into orbit. It sent three rockets into sub-orbit during the 1980s, but has never sent up a satellite on a domestic rocket. The old rockets, it should be noted, were also intended to support a nuclear weapons program, which was shuttered in the immediate years before the collapse of the apartheid regime. Beyond that, the extent of Africa in space is limited to a few satellites from Nigeria, Angola (planned), Egypt and Algeria.

Planning a unified African space agency is also still in the very conceptual stages. The first glimpse came two years ago, as the AU proposed an agency called AfriSpace (.pdf) to link up Africa's information technology grid in a continent with a growing demand for internet-connected computers and cell phones. More space research could also have second and third-order effects by improving research within Africa, and reducing the continent's dependence on other countries for high technology. But if Africa moves too fast, the result could be 'unhealthy regional competition in the space domain' (.pdf) between African countries, according to a report from the Space Security Index.

Though, there's always going the private route of companies like SpaceX, founded by South African-born engineer Elon Musk. But then Bashir probably isn't too keen on the idea of satellites ' like those from DigitalGlobe ' that he can't control.



AWOL from Obama's Speech: U.S. Mission After bin Laden

Perhaps you haven't been paying to much attention to the news lately. If so, the Democratic Party has a message for you: Barack Obama ordered the hit on Osama bin Laden, and Mitt Romney most definitely did not. What President Obama didn't say in Charlotte during his renomination speech, however, is where he ' and U.S. national security ' goes from here.

Obama seized the chance to be the rare Democratic commander-in-chief to showcase his unlikely advantage on national security. He talked about the 'young sailor I met' recovering from a war wound, and the 'mothers and fathers of those who didn't return' whom he 'held in my arms.' He openly mocked Romney as 'new to national security.' By word count, Obama devoted twice as much of his speech to national security as Romney did last week. But Obama failed to articulate an agenda for America on the world stage over the next four years.

The theme of the closing night of the Democratic convention was national security. That message was unmistakable: through treacly videos and speeches praising the 'steel in his backbone' ' in the words of Vice President Joe Biden ' the Democrats sought to project an image of Obama as a strong, fearless leader. One half of that message had to do with the bin Laden raid, which Biden portrayed as Obama's finest hour as president. The other half was to show Obama as unafraid to end wars as well as prosecute them: Obama began the foreign policy section of his speech reminding voters that he kept his promise to 'end the war in Iraq,' and pivoted to arguing about how he'll end the war in Afghanistan.

Never mind how Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, to meager gains at best. Never mind how Obama has expanded the war on terrorism to a proliferating series of undeclared wars, fought in the shadows with flying armed robots and lethal commandos, from east Africa to western Pakistan. And never mind how Obama began a whole other war in Libya, without the consent of Congress ' which he tucked into a single sentence about how from 'Burma to Libya to South Sudan, we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings,' which is an optimistic and self-serving reading of his record.

Beyond those references, it was difficult to identify a theme in Obama's speech for what the U.S. needs to do abroad over the next four years. Obama said that the Taliban's momentum 'is blunted' in Afghanistan, which is dubious, and looked to 2014, when 'our longest war will be over' ' which is simply untrue, since his administration plans to keep thousands of troops there beyond the official 2014 end of combat. 'Terrorist plots must be disrupted,' Obama said, and al-Qaida is 'on the path to defeat,' but he did not explain how the U.S. will go beyond disrupting those plots to strategic victory over al-Qaida. The U.S. will help Europe out of its economic crisis, Obama said, without details. And the U.S. will support the Arab Spring's revolutionaries ' although Obama sidestepped the hard questions of whether to intensify direct U.S. support to those revolutionaries in the face of intractable and ruthless dictators like Syria's Bashar Assad.

Obama's administration may want to refocus its attention on Asia, a region it believes is crucial for U.S. economic interests, but Obama downplayed Asia in his speech. China emerged not as a rising global power to work with, but as something to be 'stood up' to on behalf of American workers or as a source of future economic competition.

Indeed, Obama focused more attention on a different Mideast conflict ' Israel and Iran ' than he did on Asia. The U.S. commitment to Israeli security 'must not waver,' Obama said, and added that the 'Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions.' That was a reiteration of Obama's stance on Iran ' one in which he rallies a global coalition to place economic sanctions on Teheran ' without an explanation of what he's prepared to do if Iran continues its nuclear program anyway. You wouldn't know from the speech, for instance, that Obama and Israel have initiated a campaign of cyber-espionage against Iran's nuclear program. And there was nothing, incidentally, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which Obama came to office determined to resolve.

Like the rest of the Democratic Party, Obama was more comfortable bashing Romney than articulating what's next for America on the global stage. Obama gleefully mocked Romney as 'stuck in a Cold War mind warp,' and inverted a standard GOP attack ' that Obama has somehow insulted the United Kingdom ' by reminding his audience of Romney's gaffes in London during the Olympics. Biden went much, much further, suggesting that Romney lacked the fortitude to kill bin Laden and constructing a straw-man argument that unnamed politicians 'bet against America' ' which no one in the Republican or Democratic parties has done.

The foreign policy section of Obama's renomination speech contrasted significantly with Obama's 2008 goals as a presidential aspirant. Once Obama spoke about reshaping global affairs. Now he talks about managing them competently. Obama had the fortitude in 2007 to assert that he would hunt bin Laden in Pakistan even if it meant killing the terrorist leader unilaterally. But now bin Laden is dead ' and that success has left Obama struggling to articulate what America does next.



U.S. Attack on Iran Would Take Hundreds of Planes, Ships, and Missiles

Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu's advice and attack Iran, don't expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran's nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups ' plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.

There's been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington's best-connected defense analysts, has put together a remarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:

* 'Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran's efforts for a year or two.' Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged.  It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks ' by missile, terrorist, and a boat ' jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world's oil supply. And that's if Israel even manages to pull the mission off ' something Cordesman very much doubts.

* The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it'll be an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will 'require a large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the suppression of enemy air defense system[s], escort aircraft for the protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.'

But the first attack might actually be the easy part, writes Cordesman, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Pages: 1 2 3 View All



Kamis, 06 September 2012

29 Dead in 8 Days as U.S. Puts Yemen Drone War in Overdrive

29 dead in a little over a week. Nearly 200 gone this year. The White House is stepping up its campaign of drone attacks in Yemen, with four strikes in eight days. And not even the slaying of 10 civilians over the weekend seems to have slowed the pace in the United States' secretive, undeclared war.

At this week's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, you'll hear lots of talk about the Obama administration's pursuit of al-Qaida and its allies ' including, of course, the raid that ultimately took out Osama bin Laden. But the hottest battlefield in this worldwide conflict isn't likely to receive much attention. It's a shame, because the fight in Yemen is one that demands discussion. Not only does the White House consider al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula to be the extremist group most likely to strike in the United States. But the American response to that threat was been widely questioned by regional experts, who wonder whether U.S. drones and commandos aren't being duped into fighting on one side of a civil war.

The latest attack came in Hadramout province, where a barrage of eight missiles slammed into a suspected militant safe house on Wednesday, killing six people. 'The exact target of today's strike has not been disclosed; no senior AQAP leaders have been reported killed in the attack,' the Long War Journal notes. Most of those killed were fresh recruits; only one could be considered an extremist veteran, a security official tells CNN. Several others were able to escape the hideout alive.

On Sunday, at least 10 civilians were not so fortunate. They were killed in a strike gone awry near the town of Rada'a in al-Baitha province. An aircraft ' believed to be an American drone ' fired a pair of missiles at a vehicle supposedly carrying a local AQAP leader. One of the missiles instead hit a nearby minibus.  A 10-year-old girl and her mother were among the dead. 'Families attempted to carry the victims' corpses to the capital, Sana'a, to lay them in front of the residence of newly elected President Abdurabu Hadi, but were sent back by local security forces,' according to CNN.

'You want us to stay quiet while our wives and brothers are being killed for no reason. This attack is the real terrorism,' one Rada'a resident tells the network. Members of parliament and Yemeni human rights groups were quick to condemn the killings, as well.

The U.S. has two separate drone campaigns underway in Yemen ' one run by the CIA, the other by the military's Joint Special Operations Command. Together, they've conducted 43 strikes since the start of 2011, according to a Long War Journal tally, killing 274 people in the process. Exactly how many of the 274 were militants is tough to tell; the U.S. 'counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants,' the New York Times recently reported. As long as someone acts like a terrorists ' whatever that means ' he could be taken out in a so-called 'signature' strike.

Either way, the drones are only one facet of a much American broader war effort in Yemen. U.S. commandos stationed inside Yemen are helping government forces target their militant adversaries. American warplanes, based in neighboring Djibouti, are also flying missions over the country. The U.S. has acknowledged it will spend $112 million on military assistance to the Yemeni military for gear like night vision goggles and commando raiding boats. More than twice that amount will help fund nation-building there, to include 'food vouchers, safe drinking water and basic health services,' according to top White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan.

The rationale for this rather sizable campaign is simple, Brennan says: AQAP is al-Qaida's 'most active operational franchise.' Its members have tried to launch attacks on the U.S., including the infamous 'underwear bomber' of 2009, and inspire American-based extremists to do the same. Its allies even managed to take over Yemen's Abyan province for a time. In a single attack this March, insurgents surprised Yemen's 25th Mechanized Brigade, kidnapped 73 soldiers, and killed as many as 200 more in their sleep.

But the results of U.S. intervention are harder to gauge. Brennan and his colleagues say they're making progress in Yemen as a new government there gets trained up to take on the counterterror fight. Yet AQAP's ranks appear to be swelling. University of Virginia researcher Christopher Swift found on a recent trip to Yemen that economic arguments were AQAP's biggest allies. 'But the recent shift to 'signature' strikes in Yemen and the growing risk of civilian casualties is swiftly undermining our credibility with many ordinary Yemenis,' he writes. That matches what one member of Yemen's coalition government disagrees told the Washington Post in May: 'There is a psychological acceptance of al-Qaida because of the U.S. strikes,'

Nor is it always clear who is fighting whom. Yes, the government is battling AQAP. But it's also trying to put down a rebellion ' and the rebels are often hard to separate from the terrorists. Meanwhile, forces supporting the former president have battled with troops loyal to the new administration, and tribal militias have struck both Islamists and soldiers. So this is a conflict with as many as five sides, which would present a strategic challenge even if American policy makers were intimately familiar with Yemen. They are not.

'This is not going to end well,' Princeton University's Gregory Johnsen, an expert on the region, recently wrote. 'In an effort to destroy the threat coming out of Yemen, the U.S. is getting sucked further into the quicksand of a conflict it doesn't understand and one in which its very presence tilts the tables against the U.S.' Meanwhile, the strikes keep coming.



Pentagon's Robot Cheetah Outruns Usain Bolt

Updated 9/6/12 8:41 am

Robots are already stronger than humans, able to lift thousands of pounds at a time. In many ways, they're smarter than people, too; machines can perform millions of calculations per second, and even beat us at chess. But we could at least take solace in the fact that we could still outrun our brawny, genius robot overlords if we needed to.

Until now, that is. A four-legged robot, funded by the Pentagon, has just run 28.3 miles per hour. That's faster than the fastest man's fastest time ever. Oh well, ruling the planet was fun while it lasted.

The world record for the 100 meter dash was set in 2009 by sprinter Usain Bolt, who averaged 23.35 mph during his run for a time of 9.58 seconds. Over one 20-meter stretch, he managed to get up to 27.78 mph. It was a pretty impressive feat.

The Cheetah ' a quadrupedal machine built by master roboteers Boston Dynamics and backed by Darpa, the Defense Department's far-out research division ' not only topped Bolt's record-setting time. It also beat its previous top speed of 18 mph, set just a half-year ago.

'To be fair, keep in mind that the Cheetah robot runs on a treadmill without wind drag and has an off-board power supply that it does not carry,' a Boston Dynamics press release reminds us. 'So Bolt is still the superior athlete.'

But the company is looking to change all that, and soon.

In recent months, the Cheetah team 'increased the amount of power available to the robot. More power means faster motion and more margin in the actuators for better control,' Boston Dynamics CEO Marc Raibert tells Danger Room in an email. The robot-makers have also been 'working on the control system, refining how the coordination of legs and back works and developing a better understanding of the dynamics.

He adds, 'You can see that there is still room for improvement at the end of the video we just posted, where the robot starts to go faster, but loses control and trips.'

But those control systems are improving. The next major step is to build an untethered version ' one with an onboard engine and operator controls that work in 3D.

'Our real goal is to create a robot that moves freely outdoors while it runs fast. We are building an outdoor version that we call WildCat, that should be ready for testing early next year,' Dr. Alfred Rizzi, the technical lead for the Cheetah effort, says in a statement.

It may sound a little outlandish. But keep in mind: Boston Dynamics has done this before. Its alarmingly like-like BigDog quadruped is able to tramp across ice, snow, and hills ' all without the off-board hydraulic pump and boom-like device now used to keep the Cheetah on track. An improved version of the BigDog can haul 400 pounds for up to 20 miles. (See what we mean about robot brawn?) The company also has a biped 'bot, Petman, that looks like a mechanical human ' minus the head.

The idea behind these biologically-inspired robots is that legs can carry machines across terrain that would leave wheels or tracks stuck. To be a true partner to a human soldier, a robot has to walk like one, too. Darpa says Cheetah and company will 'contribute to emergency response, humanitarian assistance and other defense missions.' But when the robot was first introduced, Boston Dynamics noted that its flexible spine would help it 'zigzag to chase and evade.'

As if being brilliant and super-strong wasn't unnerving enough.