Google Earth and "Collateral Damage"

netbuzz writes "British news reports say insurgents are using Google Earth to pinpoint vulnerable targets within bases in Iraq. Could Google be doing more to prevent this? Should they be doing more? They certainly could explain more."

Comments

Yes Let's shut down the internet

[iminplaya]

and make the world "safe for democracy".

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[dave420]

Or maybe we just stop making enemies? No-one trying to blow up these bases, no problem.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[Fred_A]

Or maybe we just stop making enemies?

Now that's just crazy talk.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[duplo1]

It sounds like you've been drinking of the state-approved coolaid. Perhaps if certain countries aborted their tried-and-failed policy of toppling home-grown, democratically elected governments and installing their own(see Iran/1953, Palestine 2006 and many others in between), curbed support for oppressive regimes that only serve their interest for a short period of time (Vietnam, Saudi Arabia (and Gulf states), and now Iraq are prime examples of this), and realized that the entire world does not want to walk in their footsteps, people might begin to stop hating us.

On a somewhat related note, the Washington Post recently published an interesting Op-Ed written by Robert Kaiser, entitled "Topped By Hubris, Again". Or wait... perhaps they really do hate us because of our freedom.

Two points

[Scareduck]

1) The Telegraph leans to the right. This report may be nothing more than a shill to shut down Google Earth.

2) That said, it does seem reasonable that insurgents might be able to make use of Google Earth for some targeting information. Since the data is generally fairly stale, though, one wonders just how useful it would actually be.

Re:Two points

[sumdumass]

Stale? look at an arial of your home town. Then look at the courthouse. Zoom out for around three to five miles (range of a morter) and look for areas of concealment, escape routes that either let you run like hell, or easily blend in with a bunch of other people, obscure line of sight directly to the court house, or obsticles that might make someone responding from that general direction slower then from another route.

Then jump in the car and drive to those locations and see how much they have changed in the last few years of being stale. I bet not much. BTW, how often does the courthouse change?

I guess most things would be static for several years past staleness of the photos. I'm not sure that military bases change the internal design much. I doubt they move the mess hall or sleeping tents around every 3 months. (they might, I don't know. But more importantly, hills hiding your point of attack from the view of guardsmen or some other obsticles like rivers with the only bridge 5 miles down stream and you have a good change of finding a place to launch an attack with somewhat acurate results and a decent change of getting away. I guess patrols with aircraft and a no-go zone could eliminate that for some locations.

Re:Two points

[scum-e-bag]

Then jump in the car and drive to those locations and see how much they have changed in the last few years of being stale. I bet not much. BTW, how often does the courthouse change?

...and what stops someone from doing this in the first place? I mean really, some good old fashioned recon can get you the same info needed for an attack on a courthouse. Heck, even getting military base info such as where transports/tanks/etc are parked is easy enough with a little bit of work.

Grid references, so the enemy is using GPS guided missiles now?

This is nothing more than a google bash.

Re:Two points

[Fulcrum of Evil]

War effort? Are you kidding? We aren't at war, we've invaded some random country for no good reason. If we want to avoid getting our shit blown up, why don't we just leave?

Re:Two points

[Pink Tinkletini]

Because then they'll just come blow our shit up over here. You have our administration to thank for this state of affairs, where foreigners the world over who otherwise couldn't care less about us—I mean, except for the Palestine thing—now consider us their mortal enemies. Thanks, George!

Re:Two points

[Dave Emami]

You have our administration to thank for this state of affairs, where foreigners the world over who otherwise couldn't care less about us--I mean, except for the Palestine thing--now consider us their mortal enemies.

Go read up on the ideology of those mortal enemies a bit. Their "grievances" go back well before the liberation of Iraq or any actions of President Bush 2.0. In one of his statements immediately 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden talks about the sword reaching the US "after 80 years", referring to the breakup of the Ottomon Empire after WW1, at a time when the US was barely world power. Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's second-in-command, more or less) frames the Israeli/Palestinian dispute in terms of the "Al Andalus tragedy", the end of Moslem rule in southern Spain -- in 14-freaking-92. And while that's probably not a majority outlook, neither is it an isolated one. If Americans thought like this, the first thing we would have done upon perfecting the atomic bomb would have been to drop one on Buckingham Palace to get back at the British for burning the White House during the War of 1812. That's one basic problem: an inability to "get over it." Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we A-bomb'ed them, yet sixty years later we're the closest of allies. Germany conquered France, now those two nations are the core of the EU. Yet in the Middle East they're still upset about the Crusades.

This isn't a problem that started with Bush, nor will it end once he's gone. It's a war that's been going on, at a lower level of intensity, for quite a while -- the recent phase having begun in 1979. 9/11 was merely the first time something happened where people couldn't ignore it, and the Middle East military operations under Bush just the first time the US has attempted (whether you agree with how he's conducted it or not) to actually do something about it. It's going to continue, whether we try to influence the outcome or not, and the US will be a target. We're just too big to be ignored, given how ubiquitous our worldwide economic and cultural presence is.

Nor is this an exclusively a US, or even Western, problem. Or do you maintain that it's Bush's fault that Moslems are killing Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India, and animists in Darfur, whilst threatening to murder British authors, Danish cartoonists, and Dutch parliamentarians, and succeed in murdering a Dutch film-maker?

Now, as to the original article about Google's maps and the idea of restricting them somehow, that seems pretty useless. Anything on Goggle Maps/Earth is derived from sources which are publically (or at least commercially) available, anyway.

Finally

[EvilGoodGuy]

I wondered when someone was finally going to try to blame Google for blowing buildings up. With GPS as accurate as it is, and satallite imagery easily accessable, I don't think Google is what we need to deal with. We need to deal with the guys with the bombs.

What more could they explain?

[fabs64]

"They certainly could explain more."

And say what, exactly? Terrorists also use cars, do we ask carmakers to explain? Google earth is just a very nice fancy map, do we ask cartographers to explain?

What a pointless article.

Oh ya

[RichPowers]

Because Google is the only way to view satellite images. Shutting down Google Earth would totally solve everything! The US is ultimately responsible for concealing its assets from satellite photography. Same goes for every other country on Earth. Someone out there is always watching. PS: Must be a slow news day...

*Insurgents*

[Skiron]

If the UK was invaded by a foreign power, and the people fought back, we would be called 'the resistance', or 'freedom fighters' or what not - so why do Bliar and Bush and co. call the Iraqi people that fight back 'insurgents' ??

Re:*Insurgents*

[DaggertipX]

I hate to nitpick, but I fail to see how "indiscriminately" is the same as retaliating against what they see as(and arguably are*) foreign, hostile, and invading forces.

*Feel free to insert your own opinion here. Personally, I think if a force invaded my country to replace my way of life, I might feel the need to fight back.

Re:*Insurgents*

[Nyeerrmm]

The other difference is that, at least in theory, a 'resistance' would refer to a group trying to drive the invaders out, as is the case with the European resistances in WWII.

However in Iraq, the US and UK would like nothing better than to leave, but feel a responsibility to insure stability after the mess we caused (in one set of rhetoric), or to secure freedom for the people (in another set of rhetoric.) The insurgent forces are not fighting to remove a foreign dictatorship, or if they think they are they're doing a really bad job of it. What they're doing, at least as best as I can tell, is to insure that the new government is their groups government, or, at risk of sounding self important, to stick it to US because they don't like us and our policies on Israel and other various issues.

Obviously it's a much more complex issue, we are trying to impose our own idea of order, and put up people in power that we can at least stand. However, it seems to me, though I'm biased, that the basic differences are there and important.

Re:*Insurgents*

[sumdumass]

You will fail to see lots of things. This is unfortunate for us all. I will attempt to explain it for you.

A good portion of the insurgents are not iraqi people. Notice i didn't say all. Blowing up the people you fighting for doesn't neccesarily make on thier side. The Iraqi citizens have also been given an out err a peacfull way of getting us out.

We have set up a government, elected by thier own people, charted a constitution by thier own people with the public voting and participating in the process. We have said publicly that we are leaving as soon as the new Iraq can defend itself reasonable and provide for the security of thier own people. We have ensured that there is a proccess for people to make changes to both the government and the laws. There is the out.

Now, here is why they are insurgents. We achived our goal of outing the dictator and gave Iraq back to it's people. The resistance don't want it. They refuse to stop fighting and allow us to leave. They refuse to take control of the government by the proccess put in place that represent the majority of the population. They blow up people who are doing nothing more then providing food and shelter for thier family (not even helping the "invaders") then they blow up a second device in an attempt ti kill anyone giving medical help to these inocent civilians that became wounded. They just want to kill people and blame it elswhere.

A resistance wouldn't do someting like this. the french resistance didn't go around blowing up wine shops with no german soldiers around and yell, "that will teach them germans!". They didn't goto weddings and blow up the reception knowing no one there has done anything besides get married. They didn't blow up churches just because they were a different religion then thiers (albiet a small difference). A resitance attacks military targets. Targets that have value to the oposing force. A resistance comunicates troop movement and level to others and aids those attempting to help the resitance.

What we have is a blood thirsty group of people who entire goal is to strike terror into the citizens by any means neccesary. They are killing because of some religous zealotry and a terrorist agenda. they are common criminals and nothing more. You don't kill inocent people to scare them. Thats what every evil powerr has done in war and they were labeled evil and it was deemed wrong. There is no valor in killing for fun or because you can and that what these insurgents are doing.

A logical solution...

[Venik]

A logical solution would be not to have any vulnerable targets, especially "within bases". Here's an idea: guard your bases better. I mean, what if one day you'll have to fight an enemy that has their own aerial and space recon and doesn't have to rely on Google? So blaming Google is a ridiculous excuse for the incompetence of the military commanders entrusted with the safety of these bases.

No use censoring this kind of data...

[Pavan_Gupta]

I had wondered what should be done about this when I first happened across the article on Digg and I honestly believed that that it would make sense for Google to censor sensitive regions of the world. They could do what they did for the D.C. area and beige-out some of the imagery to protect sensitive images of the country. But then the big ugly can of worms is opened as to what's sensitive to who, etc.

And honestly, all this image censorship seems like a waste of time, because this kind of information could be discovered in such a large number of ways. Imagine just floating a balloon in the air with a camera atached and some GPS equipment? I guess the US could shoot every flying object out of the sky and then censor Google, but it's probably a lame solution... it's analogous (in my mind) to application security through obscurity.

I'd imagine the betters solution for the US is to 1) place their own tents over vulnerable points (if they like the security through obscurity solution) and to 2) cut back on those points of vulnerability. What the heck did we do during the cold war -- satellite weren't only a US technology....

Google's Duty...

[akohler]

is to ensure that terrorists, insurgents, and other undesireables, shall not have access to information that is freely and publicly available through other channels anyway.

Perhaps they should recruit all of the ISPs in the developed world to aid them in carrying out this grave responsibility. If will all just signed affidavits of government loyalty and agreed to undergo extensive background checking prior to using the Internet or any Net enabled tools, the problem would be solved.

In all seriousness, when did Google become charged with being the Internet Police? Isn't combating "terrorism" someone else's job, already?

Re:Treason

[mikesd81]

Why would Google be charged for treason? Courts have even been saying that it's not gun producer's fault when they're gun's are used in a crime. It's not Google's fault what people use their app for. If you wanna keep going, it's Microsoft's or a Linux distro fault because it runs Google Earth.

I call BS

[ktappe]

The article states "We believe they use Google Earth to identify the most vulnerable areas such as tents."

The satellite photos Google uses are updated every few years at best. If the UK forces had left their tents in the same place for years, it's not Google they should have been worried about, it's their commanders. But I somehow doubt those tents were left intact for such a long time, so the Telegraph is dishing out a pile of BS here.

duh

[oman_]

The military should be using Google Earth to find weak points in their bases so they can FIX THEM.

You think if google earth didn't exist people wouldn't get this information? Well when they do you're going to be fscked and unprepared... It's like a real world analog for security through obscurity.

Google buys pictures, you can too

[MDMurphy]

It's such a shame there are so many idiots and that a good percentage of them work in the media. Google doesn't have a fleet of satellites buzzing overhead watching our every move. They buy existing satellite and aerial imagery from commercial sources. These sources are US and non-US based. Google made deals on bulk purchases of the *existing* data and make it cheaper, but they didn't create it.

Also, the same clueless people assume this is all satellite imagery. The "good stuff" is actually lower level aerial photos shot from airplanes. Yep, someone flew right over the tops of those places and were paid to do so.
So, like most of the other "secrets" Google is blamed for revealing these pictures were already out there and available.

Hmm, I wonder if anyone in charge of security for those bases ever looked on Google Earth to see just what was visible? If investigators found printouts that showed vulnerable locations then those same vulnerabilities would have been visible to the security people. By seeing what was freely available to the outside world they could have taken precautions to reduce the risk.

Unless the attacks came just hours after new imagery was posted on Google Earth, then the security people screwed up royally.

Questionable Story

[Pooua]

I saw this story about 2 days ago. It wasn't very impressive to me at the time, and still isn't. For one thing, all we know of the insurgent's use of Google Earth is that a suspected terrorist shelter had printouts and coordinates written on it. Someone assumes this means terrorists are using Google Earth to plan attacks. Maybe so, but what are they going to do? Plot in the coordinates in a cruise missile? What piece of equipment do terrorists have that use coordinates? So, the terrorists' mortor fire is becoming more accurate; after 4 years of shelling the same targets, wouldn't one expect as much? And, yes, the maps on Google Earth are a few years old. Many of the buildings where I live, even entire apartment complexes, were not built yet in the Google Earth photos.

Maps, whether Google Earth's or not, are useful for planning attacks in other ways. Maps can communicate where to meet, where to plant bombs, where convoys will travel, etc. But, Google probably does not have the only maps of Iraq that Iraqis can get. What are we supposed to do? Ban all maps from civilians?

Re:Google News

[Anonymous Coward]

we haven't lost a single engagement since the start

To this day, the U.S. military makes the same claims about Vietnam...

Collateral Damage

[kbolino]

The phrase "collateral damage" refers to unintended casualties (esp. civilians) resulting from a military operation. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the British soldiers are the intended targets--there's nothing collateral about them being killed.

Re:Google News

[finiteSet]

If Iraqi militants can do it, so can we.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you think that all wars are voluntary. While the recent Iraq War was certainly a voluntary war, many others have not been. You can ask Poland, England, France, China, etc. about several wars that they didn't vote for but that still came to them.

Don't let your hatred of the Bush Administration cloud your views. You, like many people, are unable to separate people from events from ideas. It wasn't just George Bush or Saddam Hussein who started the Iraqi War, nor was it 9/11 or Iraq ignoring UN mandates. You are trying to blame people or events instead of challenging ideas. Hence, you have no understanding of the underlying conflict, albeit in 2003 or now (which are completely different things).

The death of al Zarqawi didn't stop terrorism in Iraq because he was just a person. The crushing of the city of Fallujah didn't stop terrorism in Iraq because it was just an event. Genocide or democide, an idea, very well could stop terrorism (an idea) in Iraq. There are other possibilities that may occur and hopefully we don't need to see genocide or democide implemented (such as in Cambodia) nor politicide (such as in Vietnam after 1975).

We are currently fighting a war like we are playing a game of football. Each side is scoring 'goals' and claiming to be winning. Instead, a comprehensive campaign should be run. The Allies didn't win WWII because they killed more people than the Axis Powers (in fact, they killed fewer). They won because they were able to implement an effective campaign against the Axis Powers.

Mod Parent Down

[10101001 10101001]

You don't need to shut down the internet. All [that] is required ... [is to] .. make a law.... It isn't like the military cannot start shooting down aircraft flying over bases and taking pictures.

I didn't realize there was one government body that controlled the internet. Nor did I realize that the military could retroactively shoot down satellites that have taken pictures of the Earth for years. Nor that it would suddenly be legal, under treaties most countries capable of shooting down satellites have signed, to start shooting down all satellites that "fly over" a warzone.

NASA were giving it away long before Google...

[netadmin]

Has nobody heard of WorldWind from NASA. They were publishing similar data way before Google got on board...

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/

First release August 2004!

Perhaps NASA could be doing more to prevent...

Dave

Then something IS wrong

[Moraelin]

Now I'm not a sniper and my service wasn't with the US army, but then it sounds to me like either that's hyperbole or the US is doing something else very wrong.

I'm one of the AA guys. You know, those who in a war would get to jam a SA missile down someone's tailpipe or put a helluva lot of 30mm holes in a helicopter or low flying plane. Specialized troops too, with specialized (big) guns, lots of electronics and radar dishes, specialized training, etc, not your average infantry grunt.

But guess what? We had assault rifles too, and we were trained to use them too. We also did our own guard duty (in a visible guard tower, too), patrols, etc.

Not only that, but it was pretty much assumed and understood that in a pinch we could and would have to fulfill other roles too. We had our own light machineguns, our own rocket launchers in case we have to deal with a mess of tanks, we were trained to chuck a grenade, storm a hill, or dig a foxhole and defend that hill.

Wars aren't neatly organized affairs, and you don't always have exactly what you need in exactly the right place. And sometimes having exactly what you need of everything in every place is a waste of manpower and material. For example, you don't dig in two brigades of infantry around your big guns brigade, just so the big guns guys can be so ultra-specialized that they never have to touch an assault rifle. It's easier to just put them somewhere where normally they won't be assaulted, but if shit hits the fan and they do, they'll have to fight like everyone else. You also don't give them a company of infantry for guard duty, they get to post their own guards.

Also war isn't so neatly organized as to always have a designated target in advance. I know I wouldn't expect a designated airplane to surgically shoot and then go home, so I'm not sure why these guys would absolutely need a strategic target designated in advance. Most of war is dealing with unplanned stuff. Some guys appear from where you didn't expect. You shoot them. If you're a sniper or designated marksman, you do your best to put a hole in someone while the other guys pin them down. And add your own suppression factor, because the fear of a sniper ranks up there with fear of heavy machineguns in a fight, when it comes to keeping people with their head down.

So if you're telling me that US snipers are so ultra-specialized that they absolutely can't function as anything else, and can't possibly shoot anyone other than as strategic target designated in advance, then methinks the USA badly needs to rethink their training and logistics. But I doubt that the US military is _that_ inept, or that indeed officers coming from a military academy and various training courses would use Hollywood action movies to learn tactics from. It's a bit like saying that programmers use Hollywood movies to learn how to use a command line.

Being sent together with a squad of other soldiers, also isn't the end of the world like you make it sound. It's not being sent with a group of civilians, it's normal military procedure anywhere in the world. The designated marksmen, SAW guys, anti-tank guys, etc, actually train for that. Sure, a sniper rifle or designated marksman rifle isn't raw firepower, but it's not there as raw firepower in the first place. That's what the other soldiers around you are for. They'll do the spraying lead job. You do yours.

Now I'm as anti-war as it gets, and, yes, I'm against the war in Iraq. I could understand ideological or humanitarian reasons against it. But "waah, they're making me work together with a squad, like in Hollywood movies!" is just awful mis-understanding of basic military tactics.

Also, it seems to me like the apex of hypocrisy, if someone is indeed against war for oil and influence, to advocate instead being a hired assassin for some equally corrupt dictator or cocaine baron. At least the army does have some democratic checks (just vote against the guy sending them there), just taking money from the highest bidder doesn't have any

Words Have Meaning

[Shihar]

We call them 'insurgents' because that is the correct term that describes all the fighters in Iraq.

A resistance movement is seeking to oust a foreign occupying power to restore the previous ruling power. Now, it is true that Iraq has resistance movements trying to kick out Americans and restore the Baathist to power, but they do not actually make up all or even a majority of the fighters in Iraq. Shiite militias and Al-qaeda are not seeking to restore the Baathist.

Insurgent is a broader term. An insurgent on the other hand is someone who takes up arms against the current governments authority. That is a term that describes almost all of the fighters in Iraq. Iraq fighters are not just fighting occupation. They are fighting other militia groups, the government, and some times just indulging in good old fashion ethnic cleansing. Doing any of the above is defying the authority of the current government, hence they are insurgents.

As far as to why we don't call them freedom fighters, it is because Blair and Bush (and most Western folks for that matter) don't consider Baathist trying to restore an Arab fascist government, Shiites trying to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis, or Al-qaeda trying to create a theocratic state and ethnically cleanse Shiites on the side to really fall under any (western) definition of "freedom fighting".

If it makes you feel better, and I am sure it will because you are clearly suffering from a sever case of moral relativism, I imagine that if the Soviets had invaded the US or Britain, they would have called us insurgents and not freedom fighters also.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[NeutronCowboy]

You do realize that Soldier of Fortune is a mag aimed at people who dream of being Soldiers of Fortune, but have never touched a rifle, and are most likely inept worker drones with violent dreams? Quoting Soldier of Fortune to talk military strategy is like quoting Weekly World News to discuss the finer details of Israelo-Palestinian peace talks.

Quite frankly, if anyone's living in Hollywood dream world, it's you. I'd suggest enlisting in the Army to figure out how stuff really works. I'm guessing there'll be a rude awakening.

What a joke

[WindBourne]

It was shown that 9/11 terrorists trained on MS Flight Sim. But did ppl call for them to change it to prevent it? Nope. Which is the way it should be. Afterall, the terrorist are also using knives and forks for attack. Should we outlaw silverware/flatware?

Lets ban maps!

[Snaller]

We all know that banning Google Earth isn't enough. They the'll just use maps! We have to ban maps as well! So that we can all feel secure!

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[tbo]

That's pretty much what he's saying - that unless you're prepared to go and fight yourself, and prove it by joining up and thus putting yourself in a position where you can fight, then you have no right to be pro-war and demand of others something you're not willing to do yourself.

Why stop with war? How about, if you're pro universal healthcare, you'd better be signing up for med school, or else you're a hypocrit. If you're not willing to become a doctor, you don't have the right to demand that doctors accept the payscale offered by the government healthcare agency. Or, even better, if you're pro-choice, you have to become an abortionist. If you think we need to do something about crime, you have to become a cop. If you want better public education, you have to become a teacher. Or maybe this whole line of reasoning is a stupid idea.

Newsflash--not everyone would make a good soldier, just like not everyone would make a good doctor, scientist, lawyer, mechanic, or whatever. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage makes it clear it's more efficient for people to do what they're best at. We have a volunteer army, and pretty much everyone signing up knows that in doing so, there is a chance they will be sent to war (possibly even a war they don't agree with). It's their choice to join, and they do so knowing that it's civilians that decide whether they'll be sent to war or not.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[Dun Malg]

The information Google gives out is available to everyone. Why don't the soldiers use it to plan their defense? They have a big advantage in that Google maps isn't updated that often, they could look at the images and plan how to booby trap the weak spots We can't use booby traps--- or as we military folks call them, mines. Are you seriously suggesting we set mines in all the alleyways surrounding our military installations? Yeah, that'd work fine, because it's not like any regular folks might be trying to live and work in the city.

Re:Google News

[jsoderba]

The america I was taught of, the USA of the founding fathers wasn't the grotesque human rights violator it has become over the past century.

The America of the "founding fathers" was the results of systematic marginalization and ethnic cleansing of the native peoples, and of the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Africans. In the historical contest these actions may be understandable, but they certainly don't allow you to hold up the early USA as a model of human rights.

"War" vs. "This War"

[Kelson]

While the recent Iraq War was certainly a voluntary war, many others have not been.

Thank you. While I personally have been opposed to the Iraq War from day one (well, before that, actually), I also get really annoyed at seeing glib statements like "War is not the answer" on bumper stickers. You know what, if a foreign power were carrying out a full-scale invasion of the US, war would be the answer.

While there are bona fide pacifists in the world (and I respect that position), it seems to me that there are a lot more people out there who cannot separate the concept of war from whatever current war we are fighting. I'm not certain if there is such a thing as a truly "just" war, but it's clear that some wars have better justification than others, and barring a genuine pacifist philosophy, they have to be evaluated differently.

You owe nothing to the feds.

[DaedalusHKX]

Protecting your country is your duty. Going overseas to attack some country on whatever pretext is generally known as "adventuring".

Draft IS slavery, in slavery someone who doesn't do that work expends your lifetime and production to enrich himself, in the Draft, someone who isn't involved in FIGHTING at all, is enriching himself by expending your lifetime and LIFE (sooner or later) the same way.

"The man whose choices are made for him is a slave."
"He who produces to have his product disposed of by others without his consent is a slave." (I forgot who authored these, I think it was Thucydides, Socrates or Plato.)

If you don't believe that, spend some time in a communist country as a worker bee. Then come lecture me on the virtues of the draft.