Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Images Used to Document International Atrocities
wikkedwoman wrote with a link to a Washington Post story about the use of satellite imagery to detect atrocities around the world. The story details Amnesty International's efforts to identify areas in the world that may have been subject to man-made disasters. By comparing and contrasting imagery captured over time, researchers can produce hard evidence to present to a hard-to-please international community. "Tonight, [Amnesty Researcher Jeremy] Nelson begins his work by making a copy of the [older] shot in the right-hand screen and pasting it directly over the [newer] one on the left. Then he makes the top one nearly transparent. A river that cuts through the scene becomes a marker to help him line up the two. Now he can easily flip back and forth to look for changes. Sudanese huts tend to follow a similar pattern: a solid base ring with a steep, thatched roof. In the earlier image, they show up as small circles, with a slight shading to the dome, depending on the direction of the sun. Nelson draws a small, green circle slightly larger than the area of the average hut and makes several dozen copies of it ... When he finishes, he moves the 2007 shot to the top and begins the analysis again ... parts of this region were burned so thoroughly that there's nothing left but a large black scar. If you didn't know that huts were there before, you'd have no idea they were now gone. 'Whoever did this did a good job,' he says quietly. 'Thorough, at least.'"
Can they see through the roofs at Gittmo?
I guess it would be more convincing if there is a pattern - e.g. 10 villages entirely burned in a 100 mile radius. Obviously, there were not 10 individual fires, but some underlying cause.
Also, I would guess whoever is burning down the villages is not burning down much of the surrounding trees and shrubs, which would indicate man-made causes
That's only proof if you actually know there's been a massacre there. Otherwise it can mean anything, including a forest fire.
That's quite a gross oversimplification for any intelligent person looking at images. Sure, a village with a few burned huts is one thing. Could be a back yard fire that took hold.
But a village with every single house burned, in a desert area where there's little vegetation that hasn't already been taken up for food or housing? That's suspicious. When it's a few miles away from another village where every single house is burned, that's suspicious too - when it's surrounded by five, ten, twenty more villages where every single house is burned... it all builds up.
This isn't a case of two variables like some piece of simple code comparing the differences in two photos, some kind of "If x_then != x_now then atrocity = true", there is a phenomenal amount more information in satellite photos.
Your point is valid but your argumentation is flawed beyond use.
The areas they are looking into are areas with reported atrocities.
Apart from that, if you look at the summary, you'll see a description of the architecture that in no way resembles the 17th centure British capital. The reason that the fire was wide spread was the proximity of the buildings and the ineptitude of the civil servants. Apart from that, there is no documentation to support or point to a massacre (except that of the Dutch and other immigrants)
The reason for New Orleans' destruction is also heavily documented as being anything but a massacre.
The point of the technology would be to act as supporting evidence instead of conclusive. If taken alone, yeah, it could be an accident or a natural occurrence. When taken in the context of a country with millions of refugees and numerous reports of pogroms, ethnic cleansing and massacres... Well, it's less likely that the explanation is accidental/natural (but of course, not impossible)
"That's only proof if you actually know there's been a massacre there. Otherwise it can mean anything, including a forest fire."
Why a troll such as you got modded "interesting" befuddles me, but I'll bite.
No, it couldn't have been "anything." "Anything" includes meteorite strikes, Acts of Gawd, and other such unlikelihoods.
Systematic burning of _disconnected_ villages over hundreds of miles over long stretches of time is not a "forest fire" especially when there is no forest.
"E.g., take the Great Fire Of London"
No, you take it. Part of the reason that the Great Fire spread so quickly was the density of flammable wooden structures. What we actually see in the satellite photographs is not dense urban construction.
I don't know what you're trying to prove in your message, but being so disconnected from reality is never a good thing. Maybe you can't wrap your brain around the fact that the long tradition of killing your fellow man has gone on for millennia and isn't all that uncommon. I don't know. I do find your twisted logic, if you can call it that, disturbing.
--
BMO
These before-and-after satellite images aren't being used as ironclad proof, in isolation; they're being used as supporting evidence. RTFA—but really now, shouldn't this have been obvious?
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
You don't think the international community knows about Dafur - or knew about Rawanda? They don't care. This may strip plausible deniabilty (eg "we had no idea that was happening"), but it won't mean there will be action taken.
It doesn't take a satellite picture to see that the parent poster is a moron, troll, or both. Manipulation at its finest, indeed.
Evidence is evidence; no one bases anything on a single piece of information. Our military has the most sophisticated satellite imagery in the world, do you think they plan entire missions over a single photo?
You know the image in that article more likely than not is a village murdered. It's more than enough evidence to go look for the bodies.
Why do I suspect the parent poster supported the Iraq war based on its "evidence"?
Let's hope the rest of the world will finally do something - we've seen Khartoum and Omar al-Bashir flaunt sanctions and other restrictions. I think dealing with the Sudanese government will involve a lot of "hard evidence" (sadly, eyewitness accounts are still being questioned by Sudan). Plus a stronger standing army not fighting other battles would be helpful too.
Since the flood was caused by man-made levees bursting, the notion that the disaster wasn't at least in part 'man-made' seems flawed.
I don't sit in front of a fscking TV other than to watch the occassional DVD. I don't know what kind of humanitarian you consider yourself to be if you don't find homelessness an atrocity. How dare you compare the suffering of one human to another, you pretentious b@st@rd. You don't know a thing about where I've been or what I've been through. So please, spare me your advice. While you're at it learn to some reading comprehension, you missed the point of my article.
Just because technology is there doesn't mean its progress. Oh boy! We can document atrocities. When I see people jumping on the bandwagon to stop them then I'll be impressed.
You're the one who needs to wake up and pull all that harsh reality you call "unfortunate" and stuff to the back of your brain so you can sleep better at night back up front and start taking a good look at whats going on around you. I think you're the one living in a superficial world.
Have you personally done anything about the atrocities you could see before the technology? If so, then bravo for you. Otherwise, get off my back, because at least I'm out there trying to make a difference.
I'm done playing who can be the bigger karma whore and start the biggest flame war here. Modding my OP as a Troll was assinine, even for
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos