Advogato: Technology in Warfare, for Peacekeeping and Peacetime

Posted 16 Apr 2008 at 23:30 UTC (updated 17 Apr 2008 at 00:09 UTC) by lkcl

In How Technology Almost Lost the War: In Iraq, the Critical Networks Are Social — Not Electronic the deployment of Technology assists soldiers to be more effective - providing the commander with real-time information on their location and status. Additionally, the local people are recruited to assist (including guarding the major of the town, who was funnelling money to insurgents).

This article will outline the benefits of providing local people with access to the same kind of technology as that provided to the military, illustrating that a combined teaching, life-changing enabling opportunity and intelligence-gathering could very quickly make it difficult for insurgents to gain momentum.

Outlined in the article is technology that sounds very familiar:

Typically, soldiers spend hours of every day at war just trying to figure out where their comrades are, and how to maneuver together. But hand out GPS receivers and put everyone's signals on a map, and those tasks become a whole lot simpler. Luckily for the Manchus, the 4/9 is arguably the most wired unit in the Army. Select troops wear an experimental electronics package, including a helmet-mounted monocle that displays a digital map of Tarmiyah with icons for each of their vehicles and troops. The unit's commander, William Prior, rides an upgraded Stryker armored vehicle that shows the same info on one of many screens. It's packed with battle command stations, advanced radios, remote-controlled weapons turrets, and satellite network terminals. No commander at his level has ever been able to see so many of his men so easily.

"It increases the unit's combat power, no question," Prior says. Trim and dark-eyed, the lieutenant colonel knows his tech. He has a master's in physics and taught science at West Point in the late 1990s.

This is reality. The article goes on to describe how the command centre keeps an eye on everything - "sigacts" - significant insurgent activities - including predictions from informants which then allow convoys to plan routes - and the locations of all Internet Cafes in Baghdad.

What I want to do in this article is to outline a role for technology which assists in bringing conflict situations to an end much quicker, and also helps to keep the peace, by winning over the local population right from the start.

The idea is simple: hand out hand-held hybrid smart technology - a combination of a spying and intelligence gathering device, a (monitored) Internet Access point, a (monitored) VoIP system, a children's teaching tool (One Laptop Per Child), a Video-On-Demand system for distribution of T.V. content - and, most importantly of course, it contains "instant access" to report insurgent activities, with guidelines given on how to take videos, voice recordings.

Skyguard Technologies already has technology which contains GPS and GSM/GPRS to record, report, to the police, an emergency. It has saved the lives of nurses, security guards and witnesses under protection. The same principle can easily be deployed in a conflict area, utilising different communications technology that is more appropriate where infrastructure such as GSM cell towers is missing (or has had to be destroyed).

The underlying technology can be encoded into PROM-flashed firmware, or custom hardware that cannot be "compromised" for use by the insurgents themselves, but other than that, it is identical to the Tech Fusion Outline technology. Including the best commercially-available GPS chipset available in the world, today (globallocate) and ZeroConf's peer-to-peer wireless triangulation methods.

So it's a wickedly up-to-date version of the leaflet-bombing that used to be carried out in the 2nd World War, but is actually "useful" to both the soldiers in carrying out their mission, on behalf of the United Nations, and it's useful to the local people, thus also fulfilling other United Nations' mandates: a double-whammy. As it will be the soldiers handing out this technology, to improve the lives of the local people, as outlined by Muhammad Yunus and Singularity of Computing, the hearts and minds of the people are won over far quicker than attempts to convince people that the insurgents are "bad".

The difficulty for insurgents will be that they will have trouble prising the technology out of children's hands. A tool which allows children to explore their creative nature, curiosity and ingenuity, under the 24x7 continuous monitoring by Mil-Int, makes anyone even *wishing* to be an insurgent that much more curious - and, likely, makes them realise that there's no hope for their cause. Even if one of these tools is destroyed, the child can easily obtain another one - and, if his unit goes offline, it will be easy to pinpoint where it happened, and send investigative units to find out why. Any adult who does not allow their child or peers to own such a unit, when all the child's friends or the adult's peers have them, will immediately be a cause for concern at the Mil-Int Headquarters.

Also, remember: the tool will contain voice-based authentication (biometric fingerprinting on voice is 100% accurate, using 140 metrics. the process of establishing "stress", "drug-usage" and even tiredness is already well-understood: a small company has extended this much much further, and has proven its technology with a deployment in a European Bank).

Voice-Authentication cannot be forged (even by the best mimics that a human cannot distinguish between the forger and the real person) and so only the child or the user will be able to use the device. Also, if a child or other user is asked to do something (by an insurgent) that they find distressing or unpleasant, the distress in their voice can immediately activate a coded alarm back at the Military Headquarters.

So the possibilities for quickly bringing about a peaceful resolution to a conflict are tantalisingly improved by deploying the right kind of technology to the local population. Technology which, after the conflict has ended, can continue to be deployed, to further keep the peace, improve the lives of the population, substitute for or shore up the communications infrastructure (such as TV, Radio and Phones which had to be destroyed at the beginning of the conflict), and thus reduce the likelihood of conflict in the future.

The tantalising possibility exists, therefore, for U.N. mandates to actually be fulfilled quicker and with less resistance and, perhaps more importantly, be seen to be more palatable, politically, than they are currently perceived to be, both by the Member States and the wider world.

(footnote: the voice-translation chip which costs $0.50 in volume production is an early version of the star-trek "universal translator". in combination with content-addressable memory, it can perform hundreds of millions of lookups per second to translate voice into phonetics, instantly, in any language of the world. the current technology supports about 1,500 words - enough to say - and translate into ANY spoken via voice-synthesis in real-time - simple phrases like "hello" or "stop!" or "how are you?" or "please could you come with me?" or "i need help!").

(footnote 2: It goes without saying that the voice-based fingerprinting can also provide valuable information in itself. The civilian version, outlined in Tech Fusion Outline will of course perform the authentication on the local device, containing cryptographic technology that guarantees the anonymity of the individual whilst also using a peer-to-peer-adapted version of PKI for authentication purposes, but in the "military" version, the PKI with voice authentication will be centralised at the Military Headquarters).

You can't imagine how close to the mark you hit it.

See also, Ft Gordon, GA.

: )

ha ha, posted 22 Apr 2008 at 03:32 UTC by lkcl »

https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/289004

Secure Connection Failed

www.us.army.mil uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is unknown.

*ROTFL*.

GIG urrrr..... hmmm, i don't see anything in that description about "how to integrate a reasonable level of technology into a civilian population and make use of them for information gathering whilst at the same time making them happy that you're providing them with infrastructure they'll need in the future when you leave, a la carrot and la stick"

MOD Challenge, posted 23 Apr 2008 at 03:28 UTC by lkcl »

UK MOD Challenge - the UK Military of Defense got fed up with the enormous overcharging for non-delivery of contracts, and so put out a challenge for some automated-assistance "tools" to be developed by industry.

a fraction of the normal amount spent on (not) developing such technological solutions has been allocated to each of the teams.

the challenge didn't specifically say "oh and we'd like you to consider methods for turning potential hostiles into potential friendlies" but it didn't rule it out, either - _but_ it does assume "you have good sources of information" which sort-of implies that you're not supposed to "augment" those sources of information in "creative ways which could defuse the situation", because the challenge specifically says that "you are not supposed to alert any hostiles to the approach of the soldiers".

so it's kind of a missed opportunity in that it's clear that it hadn't occurred to the people writing the challenge that you could potentially have some sort of non-hostile interaction with the people being approached.

*sigh*. i wish people would think things through a bit more.

??, posted 23 Apr 2008 at 03:29 UTC by lkcl »

oops. UK MOD Challenge - slightly messed up the URL there somehow

Who in their right mind would take a communication device from an invading army, and use it with the full knowledge that their communications were being monitored?

Who in their right mind would want this for their children?

So the army automatically suspects any family that chooses to opt out of this wonderful free offer? What happens when the country stabilizes and the new government, installed by the army, encourages or requires use of these devices?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but this article reads like a nightmare for me. Keeping control of computing devices by an armed force, over a possibly unarmed populace, seems to me to be the very antithesis of Free Software.

cdfrey - do read the _last_ bit of this, reply first, ok? :) take the rest with a pinch of salt and some humour.

Who in their right mind would take a communication device from an invading army, and use it with the full knowledge that their communications were being monitored?

people who were desperate to be able to feed their children. people who were desperate to find out if their family members were still alive, but their country has been turned from a first world with electricity, running water, mobile phones that work, and television and radio, into a third world nightmare overnight because of "shock and awe" targetted missiles that destroyed the entire infrastructure.

Who in their right mind would want this for their children?

people who used to have a school infrastructure in their first world country, destroyed overnight by "shock and awe" nightmare bombing, who would like their children's exams to continue, but they have no power for the schools, no chemicals left in the school laboratories (the first things to go), no books because the schools have been ransacked by looters, and there's at least *some* teaching infrastructure available through a monitored but otherwise *unrestricted* internet access (ok maybe not entirely unrestricted) and there's a means by which the classes and examinations can continue. so the children can at least finish their education, and perhaps can stand a better chance of either getting out of the country (because they have internationally-recognised qualifications) or better yet they have the self-esteem that goes with an official qualification and the desire to stay in their country and undo some of the damage done by the invaders.

So the army automatically suspects any family that chooses to opt out of this wonderful free offer?

the army? no. military intelligence? yup.

What happens when the country stabilizes and the new government, installed by the army, encourages or requires use of these devices?

that would require that the united states (or whoever supplied them) would need to hand over the PKI private keys or install new ones on the devices to the new government. the chances of either of those two things happening can be measured as multiples of zero / (time for hell to freeze over). it would be much more likely that the devices would be required to be handed in and exchanged for non-monitored equivalents [that don't have medium-range 175mhz APCO P25 transceivers in, for a start]. such as those being developed by Intel Grameen through their "World Ahead" Programme. or perhaps the OLPC project if they don't go into a complete spiralling decline of decay and disillusionment, alienating the entire free software community.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but this article reads like a nightmare for me. Keeping control of computing devices by an armed force, over a possibly unarmed populace, seems to me to be the very antithesis of Free Software.

fine. we'll just go ask the NSA and GCHQ for their opinion on the alternative popular operating systems ("swiss cheese" i think you'll find is a phrase they might consider using) and their view on whether it would be a good idea to place such an operating system so close to the hands of an terrorist organisations, shall we? or - we'll ask the alternative popular operating system manufacturer for the source code in order to verify its correctness and suitability. or - we'll ask them to quote us for the cost of adapting it to a military-grade security level for deployment in a potentially hostile environment, yes?

ok - all those things said - the article i have to say isn't so much directed at a free software audience: it's more directed at the military and intelligence communities. your response will be most enlightening and illuminating to them. also, i wonder if the United Nations would be upset at a lost opportunity to engage with the Free Software Community, or whether they would agree that it is far too much like "Big Brother"?

food for thought...

correction, posted 25 Apr 2008 at 03:27 UTC by lkcl »

also, i wonder if the United Nations would be upset at a lost opportunity to engage with the Free Software Community,

that should read "out of a sample of 2 who expressed an opinion so far, 1 has said 'i get it - and i can't tell you details but you're pretty close to what's being discussed SHH!', and the other has said pretty emphatically 'nightmare. count me out'.", i wonder if the United Nations would like to take this as a representative sample which concludes that the probability that the Free Software Community is supportive of the idea of helping them to fulfil some of their humanitarian initiatives, is "fairly low".

... but i can't think of a simple way to compact that sentence down without leaving out some of the subtleties (help! sorry!)

Who in their right mind would take a communication device from an invading army, and use it with the full knowledge that their communications were being monitored?

people who have nothing to hide.

Who in their right mind would want this for their children?

people who have nothing to hide.

So the army automatically suspects any family that chooses to opt out of this wonderful free offer?

one of the jobs of MIL.INT will be to use the fact that a family declines to accept the offer of vital free communications and information infrastructure to ascertain whether to place the head of the family into the "person who has something to hide" bucket, the "we made a mistake in explaining the benefits of this infrastructure so we need to do a better job here, guys" bucket or the "damn stubborn principled foreigners whose intransigent and nationalistically-proud minds we couldn't shift if we offered them $1m in gold bars" bucket.

What happens when the country stabilizes and the new government, installed by the army, encourages or requires use of these devices?

by that time, all the people with something to hide will hopefully have been neutralised, killed or jailed, and the point is moot, and the need for such incredibly expensive (by commercial standards) and incredibly successful devices will no longer be necessary.

Upon reading your replies, it occurs to me that MIL.INT might not even tell people that their communications are being monitored, at least not explicitly. People in dire circumstances are indeed vulnerable to such offers. Even well-off people are vulnerable to the "free stuff" (as in beer) trojan horse.

i wonder if the United Nations would like to take this as a representative sample which concludes that the probability that the Free Software Community is supportive of the idea of helping them to fulfil some of their humanitarian initiatives, is "fairly low".

The very nature of Free Software means that the military can use what I write for nefarious purposes. So in that sense, the military, or the United Nations, or the "stubborn foreigner" are all equal beneficiaries.

If the UN wants help, I think it has to be kept in mind that one of goals of Free Software is to empower the user. I find it hard to imagine that the UN or the military would get much help in designing and implementing something that almost amounts to DRM-like Trusted Computing.

Even a Social Business implementing such a thing for hire would likely be a little controversial.

But I've been surprised before, and people have a tendency to be more nonchalant about their privacy than I am.

Upon reading your replies, it occurs to me that MIL.INT might not even tell people that their communications are being monitored, at least not explicitly.

_hell_ no :)

i wonder if the United Nations would like to take this as a representative sample which concludes that the probability that the Free Software Community is supportive of the idea of helping them to fulfil some of their humanitarian initiatives, is "fairly low".

The very nature of Free Software means that the military can use what I write for nefarious purposes.

or any other purpose - nefarious or beneficial (even if it means that people die)

actually, i'm glad you raised the point, because many people - both in free software and in environments where "secret classifications" are required such as intelligence agencies, military establishments etc., are not aware that "Classifications" take precedence over the GPL. it's a little complex, but bear with me.

the GPL states that distribution of binaries must be accompanied on request by distribution of source code. ordinarily, an individual would have the right to make such a request. however, in a "Classified" environment, an individual signs over absolutely every right to ownership - on pain of jail sentences and, in extreme circumstances possibly even death (treason is still a hanging offence in the UK). therefore, when any GPL software is "classified" and distributed in binary form only in a "classified" environment, the person making the request for the source code is doing so on behalf of the very organisation for which they already work! as a representative of their organisation, the organisation is asking itself for the source code - which it already has.

secondly, as if that wasn't enough, "Classifications" apply for decades - and take precedence over the GPL. without a shadow of doubt. so, an organisation, in a "Classified" environment, can only requests for the source code to be given to itself, and the source code never gets "distributed" outside of the "Classified" environment, because it's (duh) "Classified". the binaries never get "distributed" outside of the "Classified" environment (duh) so the source code will never make it out of the top secret environment, either.

the bottom line is that a military or other "top secret" establishment can utilise any GPL or other licensed free software - including mixing it in with proprietary software - and, as long as they keep the "Classification" on it, they can use it for as long as they like without giving back the source code to the free software community. Now, of course, when the "classification" period ends, in twenty or fifty years, the reason why it will have ended is because the software serves no further purpose, and will have been "ceased and desisted" from all use anyway.

at that time, conceivably, the establishment may choose to release the source code. and, in fact, in the United States it is a legal requirement to do so. Any civil service which develops source code must release that source code (if it is "unclassified") into the public domain (believe it or not). which is why CSRC have released their Statistical Test Suite into the public domain, and why NASA does so much of its work as free software.

If the UN wants help, I think it has to be kept in mind that one of goals of Free Software is to empower the user. I find it hard to imagine that the UN or the military would get much help in designing and implementing something that almost amounts to DRM-like Trusted Computing.

they don't need to ask - they can just take whatever free software exists, classify it, slap it onto some custom-built hardware and distribute it, without telling you that it's even happened.

But I've been surprised before, and people have a tendency to be more nonchalant about their privacy than I am.

tell me about it. i don't really _need_ to illustrate this to you - but i'll give at least one example: someone from the green party, uk, had their bank accounts cleaned out ($100,000) after being advised that windows is insecure and could have keystroke loggers installed on it. they are still in the process of recovering their life savings from the bank.