Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Forces In Iraq Ban GPS Phones

Brian Enigma writes "According to a report last night on NPR and these two articles, Central Command has banned a particular satellite phone from reporters. It seems that it not only has a GPS--to help locate which satellite to use--but also (if activated) transmits the users location back to the phone company. Eavesdropping this signal is nontrivial, but still possible."

9 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. In related news... by neocon · · Score: 5, Funny

    In related news, embedded reporters are also being instructed not to carry Iraqi homing beacons, or gigantic signs saying ``US Troops Here ----->>''

    I mean, why is this news?

    1. Re:In related news... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. It isn't news because it's a story that's at least two weeks old.

      I had a heated discussion with at least one sceptic who didn't believe it was at all possible just here on slashdot only last week.

      Suffice to say that Twirlip of the Mists didn't believe that the US military would do anything to harm journalists going about their daily business of informing us about this war and that the journalists who first reported this story must have "misunderstood" what the Pentagon meant when they said that all independent transmissions were legitimate targets. Bless his cotton little socks.

      2. It is news because not all journalists in Iraq are "embedded" with US or British units.

      A journalists main objective (the bias of his or her parent organisation aside) is to get to the truth. It's pretty hard to do that if you only see what the US and British commanders on the ground want you to see. Just as you shouldn't trust everything that's broadcast by Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine on Iraqi TV, you also shouldn't trust everything that the mainstream press's embedded journalists report. To get a more accurate picture you have to do what the military themselves teach their commanders to do with their intelligence reports; look at lots of different news sources, filter out the garbage and actively search for the truth rather than just accept what's handed to you on a plate.

      Accordingly, the less superficial news gathering services and agencies have a lot of journalists in Iraq that aren't embedded.

      (Remember, CNN, NBC, CBS or whoever are commercial news broadcasters. It's in their interests to tell the American public what they believe the American public wants to hear. Nobody wants to eat their dinner whilst hearing about how a US patrol killed fleeing women and children, so the networks don't show them that side of the war.)

      Sorry if this seems like a rant but the amount of ignorance that the general public has about this war (and, unfortunately, this is especially true of the average American) is frightening.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:In related news... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Times of London
      Sunday March 30, 2003
      US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death
      Mark Franchetti, Nasiriya

      THE light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the
      beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of
      shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My
      footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards
      the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.

      Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the
      road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned
      into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.

      Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in
      nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight,
      probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy
      artillery.

      Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the
      coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young
      American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved.

      One man's body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked
      away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes.
      His savings, perhaps.

      Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty
      orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who
      may have been her father. Half his head was missing.

      Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi
      woman - perhaps the girl's mother - was dead, slumped in the back seat. A
      US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies.

      This was not the only family who had taken what they thought was a last
      chance for safety. A father, baby girl and boy lay in a shallow grave. On
      the bridge itself a dead Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a
      donkey.

      As I walked away, Lieutenant Matt Martin, whose third child, Isabella, was
      born while he was on board ship en route to the Gulf, appeared beside me.

      "Did you see all that?" he asked, his eyes filled with tears. "Did you see
      that little baby girl? I carried her body and buried it as best I could but
      I had no time. It really gets to me to see children being killed like this,
      but we had no choice."
      Martin's distress was in contrast to the bitter satisfaction of some of his
      fellow marines as they surveyed the scene. "The Iraqis are sick people and
      we are the chemotherapy," said Corporal Ryan Dupre. "I am starting to hate
      this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get
      hold of one. I'll just kill him."

      Original URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-62825 8,00.html, currently doesn't work.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
  2. Re:Good. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "And why shouldn't they?"

    There isn't a reason they shouldn't. They're doing the right thing. I think the point of posting this story was to rile up the knee-jerk "banning technology is oppression!" ppl. It's kind of like running into a crowd of Mac people, putting on a helmet, and shouting "3 gigahertz!!"

    *hoping the mods are open to a little humor today*

  3. BANNED? by dogbox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why were these phones allowed in the first place? Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply give them a list of things they CAN take rather than giving them a list of things they can't take and possibly missing something?

  4. Re:Good .... but .... by ebuite37 · · Score: 5, Funny

    First, I think you have to realize that certain press people are with certain American forces using a certain technology...hint hint.

    Second, just because the government doesn't tell everyone its intentions behind mandates doesn't mean there is a huge conspiracy behind it. What if Washington were honest in its intent to pusue justice and freedom for the Iraqi people? Whoah! Perhaps there are people in power who actually care about oppressed people and
    Americans who are risking their lives to stop it!!!

  5. Intelligence problem by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem, if you think about it, is not merely that the conversation could be non-trivially intercepted by Iraqis, but something more insidious. These phones hunt for the closest processing center via GPS and every so often broadcast their position to that center. For the Iraqi desert, the closest center is in United Arab Emerates (sp?), which is a colalition ally but susceptable to intelligence inflitration. So, it's not just the US being paranoid that the waky Iraqis can intercept and interpret the code its that there very well could be a sympathetic listener in the UAE, or elsewhere that GPS position is recorded.

    Signal Ops with Hum Int is very powerful. In this case the Hum Int may be the bigger concern.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  6. Re:Beacause It Is Censorship On A War Gone Bad by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While that is the good kneejerk response, it's not based in fact.

    By US military estimates the US has destroyed perhaps a Brigade worth of Iraqi soldiers. I'd guess it's closer to an Iraqi Division or 6-9,000. It's in the "thousands" but it's thousands of combatants who are using tactics that lead to large number of combatant deaths. Assaulting superior equipment, house to house fighting and not having capable air defense to attrit the American and British bombers and strike aircraft.

    The Iraqi government has tossed out numbers in the hundreds and the International Red Cross says an average of about 100 people are killed or wounded every day in Baghdad because of bombing by U.S. and British forces. Iraqi AAA and SAMs falling back into the city aren't helping matters much either I suspect.

    Less are dying this time than the last time because the Allies aren't carpet bombing Iraqi units in the field.

    This ban on these comm devices isn't censorship in a war gone bad, its called lowering the emissions of the units in the field.

    If anyone here really thought a military operation to defeat a large army in the field in a country the size of Oregon and Washington was going to happen in 3-10 days is an idiot. If Rummy thought that, he is an idiot as well.

    There is a list as long as my arm of tiny cutoff islands in Japan whos capture cost the Americans a 100 times more casualties an hour than Iraq and many of them had been shelled and bombed for days before the first soldiers set foot there.

    The current campaign on Iraqi isn't an "arrogant miscalculation" it's a remarkably well organized and carried out operation to this point.

  7. War Gone Bad... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On slashdot, K5 and in the local and national press the words disaster, quagmire and miscalculation are thrown around less than 2 weeks after this war started.

    Well alot of people need to look at modern military history to see how fast armies move and how long it takes to eliminate enemy opposition.

    February and March 1945 the Marines attacked an island 2 miles by 4 miles in the Pacific. In 36 days 6,800 Marines died and 19,000 were wounded.

    21,000 Japanese soldiers were killed.

    For 70 days the island was bombed and for 3 days it was shelled by battleships.

    On 1 April 1945 the Marines and Navy attack Okinawa. The fighting for the most part ended on 30 June 1945. In 90 days of fighting 12,000 Americans died and more than 38,000 were wounded. 34 ships were sunk, 368 damaged and 763 aircraft lost. 26,000 American soldiers left the battle because of combat fatigue and other non-battle causes.

    And lets remeber how long the last wars took.

    Gulf War '91 - 44 days of bombing before a 3 day ground war.

    Serbia - 77 days of bombing before Milosevic threw in the towel.