Slashdot Mirror
DOD vs. 802.11b
goombah99 writes "The NY times (reg required) reports that "The Defense Department, arguing that an increasingly popular form of wireless Internet access could interfere with military radar, is seeking new limits on the technology". It would seem they have a good point; radar is an essential for both defense and civilian aviation as well as ship navigation in tight quarters. Critics of the restrictions contend technology can limit the interference, but what proof is there to these assertions? Sure we all want wireless internet but maybe there should be more careful review of its consequences."
Well, they'd better tighten up the radars to deal with it else they've just given an off the shelf solution to interfering with these radars, and told interested parties about it.
Consider the impact of a Beowulf cluster of these!
Last I checked it was the FCC that was responsible for the allocation of spectrum in the United States and territories. They are the arbitrator of interference issues. In short: I use WiFi, if there is a problem then the FCC, not me, is to blame.
Remember, Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic
The article says that DOD only wants a delay in the consideration, blah, blah...
"The Pentagon wants regulators to delay consideration of opening an additional swath of radio frequencies..."
It seems prudent to at least explore the possibility that wireless could degrade the use of radar (for military and civilian purposes) before jumping on this issue. The key to being responsible about it is to move quickly on the necessary research.
Choice quotes: "might cause interence", "not right now, but maybe in the future"... This is the Pentagon spreading FUD, and knowing the predilictions of the current administration, it all bodes very ill for wireless in general and WiFi in particular. In my quick scan of the article I didn't see any mention of 5Ghz or 802.11a, so it rationalizations that the Pentagon is looking at the UII band are misplaced.
Consider yourselves warned.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
Didn't it occur to them to talk to the FCC about this, and the standards bodies that set up the 802.11a standard BEFORE products were out there on the market? If they missed the boat with this, then somebody's fucking head should roll. What a bunch of idiots. Fire whoever is responsible for failing to bring this up in the first place and make them personally liable for business losses to companies if they have to pull products off the market. That'll teach em.
Dbrower - you are absolutely rigght. All of this stuff about interference is pure BS. Software Defined Radio combined with Open Spectrum renders interference problems obsolete. Ironically, it was the military who invented software defined radio in the first place!
I would say this has more to do with either pure ignorance on the part of the DOD, or an excuse to squash this liberating technology.
Planet P Weblog - Personal Liberty with Technology.
www.enthea.org
Forget it! This will be another great technology that will no longer be avaiable in US.
But pay attention, acording to Goldenstein (984)continuous state of war serves as an excuse to cut civil rights avoiding protests!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Hello convienent excuse!. Now I know there is scientific basis behind the interaction of radio frequencies and sensitive electronics but for pete's sake. If the world was so delicate, terrorists would be setting up open APs near radar towers and leave the box cutter at home in lieu of a gameboy to play with during take-off.
....these airports, to be exact.
Anyone ever hear of any planes crashing at any of these due to the 802.11 WAPs in use? No? I didn't think so.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
... _we_ should worry about interference. As a naval elec officer I recall we had to shut down our radars before coming into the harbour because they wrought havoc with the digital phone switching systems in the area. Wireless users arise and get the military to shut down their PRON interference systems!
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Seems that the military should have taken this into account in the original specs of their equipment.
would be barebacked doin the nasty sleepin in bed together. I think slash has fallen to an all new low.
.gov is trying to spread about 802.11
/. has been given it's walking papers by the man. Either convince your .5 million readers we're right or we pull the plug. Fucking shameful, just shameful.
We all know GWB and his little gang of croonies have been silently moving to gain "control" over the internet. They've enlisted the help of the RIAA and MPAA plus their teams of lawers to overpower the routers of major backbone providers with threats of bankrupcy. Those that play ball such as AT&T will have their right of way taxes deferred, those like worlcom will have to suffer.
They want it controlled for "our safety" "We don't want no stinkin terrorist using "Our network" to transmit dirty messages to bad 'ol osama (read satan)
They want it controlled to keep the ever slipping grip of media copyright back in the hands of the huge players like sony, virgin, capitol records, ect. Who cares if it hurts the smaller labels.
And killing 802.11 would be a major win to them because it's such a "pirate radio station" They can't control it and that scares them. The worst thing is seeing slash become party to the "psychological warfare and FUD" the
I can't really comment about the technical aspects of if this REALLY affects radar, but as an american citizen watching this issue, I can.
A smart person would look at thier reasons and say, "Hmm, messages, oh yeah, PGP mail... and uh people trading MP3, well can't do much there unless you cut off their ears"
Instead of letting the smart people address this issue they're trying to play on our emotions and get the mob riled up. You are not a good american if you run a public 802.11 node. You are not patriotic for sharing MP3's. You're in bed with the terrorist for using encrypted e-mail.
Well, this message too will probably be modded into oblivion too. As i'm sure
Have you seen the ads on TV: "This is Mary. This is Mary's nickel bag of Pot. This is Mary's dealer. This is Osama binLaden. Mary's dealer buys his quarter pounds from Osama." The govt. is trying to connect EVERYTHING to terrorism! They want control over EVERYTHING...and they're doing it in the name of 'protecting' us! The propoganda machine is running full tilt 24/7.......
Doesn't Wi-Fi run on an "unregulated" frequency, as specified by the FCC? This means that any device using this spectrum must accept interference from other devices in this spectrum, such as microwaves and cordless phones.
This seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to limit personal freedom and access to the internet, IMHO. If the millitary is using radar in these spectra, that's their fault; they must deal with it and not blame their ineptitude on the wireless internet community.
Could it be that the DOD just considers a widespread decentralized highspeed wireless network a threat?
Its one thing if the network is owned by a large corporation that can be dealt with easily by the dod. But as a lot of WiFi is community based, a widespread network would be harder to control or shutdown. Making 3g attractive to the DOD as their lawyers can mandate the tapping of someones account or even shut the network down in a region. But Community WiFi has no such centralized authority that can be targeted.
Well said from the comfortable position of 1 year's worth of contemplation.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
If he had gotten up and actually acted, the planes would have been followed by fighter planes, and given authorization, shot down before they got close enough to take out the towers.
I notice your conspicuous use of the plural term "towers" above. Do you honestly mean to suggest that on the morning of 9/11, before the first tower was struck, it was appropriate and justifiable behavior to shoot down airliners that were flying off-course?
Let's take the discussion further. Let's move to just after the first plane crash. Do you expect the president of the United States to authorize the destruction of every airliner in U.S. airspace which is off-course because one happened to run into a building?
I don't know what a careful decision on the part of the Commander in Chief to use deadly force against innocent civilians looks like in your political universe, but I sleep better at night knowing that my president is reluctant to take such action.
Well geeze, where were you if you knew these four planes were being hijacked to ram into buildings? You should have been telling the military to shoot down any hijacked planes because unlike the vast majority of hijacked planes, you know these ones were going to use used in this way.
What a gift your forsight could have been, it is a shame our President did not have the gift you appearently did.
Finkployd
This is FUD generated by the DOD. The FCC limits the EIRP (equivalent isotropically radiated power) of the ISM band used by 802.11. The allowable power levels for 802.11 are 1 watt using an omni-directional antenna and 4 watts for a directional antenna. I doubt the tinny amount of power these devices emitted will interfere with military radar. For more info about 802.11 power levels check out this 802.11 Planet article.
Markoff has been wrong as many times as he has been right. A post on BAWUG suggested that this was an urban myth -- case in point being: what did the DOD do when all of their microwave communication ran on 2.4ghz back before wifi was even a pipe-dream?
Markoff is such a tool, have you read his books on Mitnick -- what a joke.
This communication is secured using Rot-26 Encryption Algorithm, Unauthorized decryption will be subject to laughter.
first, he is reluctant to take military action against US civilians -- if you listen to the rhetoric coming from washington at the moment (take out saddam) you will note little indication that the loss of civilian lives weighs heavy on the minds of military planners (considering large civilian losses are expected if an invasion is to actually take out saddam).
The contrast you are attempting to make is poorly supported by the practices and doctrine of the US military, which takes incredible measures to protect the lives of enemy civilians, and by the fact that the only people being shot at in Iraq right now are U.S. pilots. I therefore find your suggestion as to the state of mind of military planners with regard to said civilians to be extremely suspect.
it's a situation that we havn't encountered but we should be flexible enough to handle these situations. a lame analogy to my line of work would be having a production server crashing while i'm eating lunch and lesurely enjoying my lunch instead of fixing the problem. the point is that people (i won't point fingers) didn't do their job.
Your lunch analogy has a very big problem in being applied to the 9/11 crisis. In your example, you have complete awareness of the problem, its scope, and the solution that is required. You do not depend on thousands of people in various organizations that lie between the president and a radar operator for the FAA to impart the knowledge that radar operator has that Something Is Wrong.
Can you identify for me a point of view, be it Air Force One, the cockpit of an F-16 searching the skies for the missing plane, a fire truck parked in front of the twin towers, or anywhere else in the country from which a clarity of vision sufficient to kill hundreds of airline passengers could have been obtained? Given the pain and tragedy of that morning, I would consider such conceit not only hopelessly divorced from reality, but also viciously unfair to those who struggled to find the right thing to do that day, many at the expense of their lives.
I spend a great deal of time studying history, particularly moments of crisis such as Pearl Harbor. I find that we are instinctively driven to find a meaning in disaster, so that we can try to create a construct of belief that we can avoid it in the future. It is therefore much easier to find blame in the actions of those in crisis than to admit that given the millions of life's uncertainties, combined with our own imperfections, nothing could have been done. I admit that it is a painful, powerless confession to make, but I simply believe that the honor of those who died that day demands it. Somehow, I think that our ability to truly learn from those events depends upon it.