Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Seeks To Secure Data With Electronics That Dissolve On Command

An anonymous reader writes "Electronic devices are built to last, which make them very reliable. However, if during a hostile situation such a device has to be left behind or gets dropped, it will continue to function and could end up giving the enemy an advantage. With that in mind, DARPA has set about creating electronics that work for as long as necessary, but can be destroyed at a moment's notice. The project is called Vanishing Programmable Resources (VAPR). Its main aim is to develop so-called transient electronics that are capable of dissolving completely, or at the very least to the point where they no longer function. Destroying a VAPR device should be as easy as sending a signal to it or placing the device within certain conditions e.g. extreme heat or cold, that triggers the rapid destruction process."

163 comments

  1. Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would be interested to know why its a "destroy on command" instead of a "sign in to keep working" strategy. Seems like it would be simpler to just have the electronics degrade if not being used by an authorized user.

    1. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would hand The Enemy an easy method of sabotage. All he would need to do to cripple your gear is to try to use it (like some idiot locking out your account by trying to guess the password... but in this case it's hardware and it's irreversible). Or if it's based on time elapsed since the authorized user was using it, just keep you away from it for that long. If you want the authorized user to be the one to determine when the gear should (and should not) be sacrificed, it has to be "destroy on command".

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by TimeandMaterials · · Score: 1

      Very easy...just add Alka Selzer. Plop plop fizz fizz...there goes my data!~

    3. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you're not old enough to remember the TV show that the Mission: Impossible movies were spun off from. "This message will self-destruct in ten seconds" followed by smoke pouring from the portable reel to reel tape recorder.

      I guess the engineers are too young to have seen it, too. Coat the thing with explosive (saltpeter mixed with sugar will do) and all it takes is a match. It could be triggered by the loss of a wifi or bluetooth signal. Where do I get my grant money now?

    4. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by clickety6 · · Score: 2

      it has to be "destroy on command".

      Troy? Yeah, it's me! I'm on mission, They gave us these new VAPR Pads. Yeah, Troy, they're great. Now I'm here surrounded by all these rice fields looking for the enemy. No, rice fields.... you know, paddies, Troy.

      *PAD*DESTROY*

      Troy? Hello? Are you there? Why's this bit come off in my hand?

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    5. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Explosives or thermite are out of the question - you don't want this thing starting fires in storage or soldiers' pockets.

    6. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well yes and no. It's not black or white, as usual.

      First of all and most importantly: the goal of the ennemy is not to "keep it away from you that long". If they already have it away from you, they can use a hard-disk destroying machine and put your shinny toy in it and it's gone: no need to abuse the "sign in to keep working" to destroy something you already have possession of. The goal of the ennemy capturing, say, one of your drone, is to analyze how it's done.

      So the problem with "destroy on command" is that if the ennemy's goal is to gain intelligence insights, the first thing, say, Iran is now going to do once they catch a drone or anything else is bring it under 20 meters of concrete where no signal can pass through and it has defeated the "destroy on command" purpose.

      There are certainly use cases for a system that dissolves its electronics once it cannot reach its "masters" for long enough.

      I think it's all details anyway: once they have the "dissolving" technology, it's trivial, depending on the use case, to have stuff "destroy on command" and others "destroy when I can't hear any cryptographically signed heartbeat anymore" and others to be "sign in to keep working".

      Give me access to the shiny trigger that launches the dissolvent and I'll implement various funny variations ; )

    7. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Bomazi · · Score: 1

      The idea is that you have exclusive physical access to the hardware, until you decide to abandon it. If an enemy can separate you from the hardware or access it before you make this decision, you have other problems.

      There are plenty of other reasons not to want a system that nags you at regular interval.

    8. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      in either situation, the whole concept is a failure. What's to guarantee that a: a destroy on command function works, or b: a "only allow authenticated" works? What's to guarantee that either one can be bypassed if someone has the physical device, or forgets to do the "destroy on command"?

      This is a sign of people watching too much mission impossible and thinking it's a good thing. They should focus on basic security improvements, not try to go fancy with crap that doesn't even work.

    9. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you can destroy it on command you can build an authentication system that sends that command when it fails.

    10. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is PERFECT! now cellphone companies can sell me a new handset every month as part of their new, streamlined telecom package!
      And a new computer, as part of their new streamlined video watching and typing service package!
      The only thing that never stops are the scrolling ad bars, which we can conveniently use to conveniently light up our homes by stacking up the hundreds of boxes we burn through every year. In fact, one day a modest family of eighteen might be able to upcycle the sets into an entire three room home!

      But seriously people: Wake up, this plastic age has to end.

    11. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Lashat · · Score: 1

      Easy to do. RFID tag is implanted in the user if it travels beyond the designated distance BOOM. Dead user...eh....wait..

      In version 2.0, the ...

      --
      For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
    12. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily, a very thin coat of thermite on the board/chips might be just enough to trash the circuitry but have no real risk of causing a fire, especially if put inside a casing that can contain any heat & sparks. That would probably be a good idea anyways so the hardware is hardened from external sources of possible damage (fire, blast, etc). That being said this whole thing sounds like a bad idea. I can just see the kill codes being stolen by an adversary, and your entire military's hardware going up in smoke. Or a soldier trapped behind enemy lines who is assumed KIA suddenly finding his hardware has burned itself to a crisp. Designing your system to be fault and hardware loss/compromise tolerant is a much better scheme. Assign each platoon/soldier their own access/encryption codes, if they are lost/captured simply downgrade their security permissions to the system to practically nothing. Any built in capabilities could be used by you adversary but a few captured devices probably aren't going to do them much good, and if they have the capabilities to reverse engineer it they probably have the resources to build it on their own anyways.

    13. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by tibman · · Score: 1

      The handheld crypto computer i used had a software self-destruct. You pressed the red key three times and it was dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/CYZ-10
      As far as equipment, each truck had a thermite grenade by the radio. Pull pin, place on radio, walk away.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    14. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by tibman · · Score: 1

      Seems like they should be fine. You are destroying the thing anyways. Do you mean accidentally going off? Soldiers already carry plenty of that and its rarely an issue.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    15. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If you want the authorized user to be the one to determine when the gear should (and should not) be sacrificed, it has to be "destroy on command".

      Who says the authorized user should? If the equipment needs protection because it can give an enemy an advantage, and it falls into enemy hands, then it should be rendered useless.

      That would hand The Enemy an easy method of sabotage. All he would need to do to cripple your gear is to try to use it

      Or destroy it with explosives...

      It IS in the hands of your enemy; therefore, they could do whatever they like with it, including hiding it somewhere you won't ever find it.

      Or if it's based on time elapsed since the authorized user was using it, just keep you away from it for that long.

      Your enemy separated you from your equipment... that means the enemy is in control, what more could be said?

      There are really two risks, that would cause you to want to block access to equipment:

      1. An enemy can pick it up and start using it -- for these situations, a password, or login makes the most sense. A self-destroy mechanism doesn't really provide meaningful assistance against this threat, because an access restriction is good enough, as long as it can resist attacks that don't involve days with a logic analyzer. And for this situation; if the authorized user doesn't think it needs destroyed, then fine.... keep intact, but deny access.

      2. An enemy can pick it up and bring it home -- bring it to a lab to analyze; analysis of the electronics might reveal information the enemy could use. This risk warrants the implementation of destruct mechanisms. Because denying access on the field doesn't prevent analysis. Moreover, if the destruct isn't timely, the enemy might learn how to disable the destruct mechanism, SO the forces cannot afford to let the authorized user make a decision (the authorized user may be incapacitated); the destruct should be automatic, and designed to occur in a way and at a time, which will ensure that the risk of the destruct being disabled, or analysis has already started, will be minimal.

      A start, would be to place electronics in rugged tamper-resistant outer and inner cases, which would be opened during normal use without a second thought -- and if the outer case is open, an authentication timer starts counting down....

    16. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more thermite plasma?

    17. Re:Sign in to keep vs destroy on command by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      Deployed soldier: " Now what was that password again... " ( 5 tries later ) " DAMMIT it melted! Scheisse, all over my shoes... Somebody call Central and have them airdrop another unit, we didn't get the message again... "

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  2. They should ask Boeing by flowerp · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard Boeing has some batteries that meet these requirements.

    --
    --- Eat my sig.
    1. Re:They should ask Boeing by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Apple iPhones, too. Just ask anybody who's dropped one.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:They should ask Boeing by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you dropped it, you weren't holding it right.

    3. Re:They should ask Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I offer up my touchsmart tx2z for study. It died one year and a month from the purchase date.

    4. Re:They should ask Boeing by coyote_oww · · Score: 2

      If you dropped it, you weren't holding it right^H^H^H^H^H^H.

      Simplify! Steve Jobs approves!

    5. Re:They should ask Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they should ask the Chinese instead. Aren't there claims already being made about Chineses parts being remotely disable-able, specifically to mess up any US military equipment that happens to incorporate it?

    6. Re:They should ask Boeing by catmistake · · Score: 3, Funny

      Have you ever tried installing Windows... and just let the machine sit there, never using it? Even with no one ever using it, over time, the installation still rots. Even if you never used it, in a few short months, it will be unusable anyway. I think far and away the vendor that matches the requirements best is Microsoft. Although admittedly, the strategy of deploying something that is already broken (call it auto-self-destruct rather than merely self-destruct) seems to overshoot DARPA's goal.

    7. Re:They should ask Boeing by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried installing Windows... and just let the machine sit there, never using it?

      Yes, for an employee who was transferred off site and never used her system.

      Even if you never used it, in a few short months, it will be unusable anyway.

      Err, no. The system sat there for over 9 months of non-use. Works just fine even today. Of course once someone started using it for real it needed about an hour and a half of updating, but still running on the original OS install after sitting for a while not being used.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:They should ask Boeing by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The whole idea is ridiculous. It's simply impossible.


      ---
      "This message will self-destruct in five seconds."

    9. Re:They should ask Boeing by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      The whole idea is ridiculous. It's simply impossible.

      Nonsense. We already have this. All you have to do is let the black smoke out.

    10. Re:They should ask Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. MS-hater much?

      Although I have seen this with APPLE DEVICES!!!!!

    11. Re:They should ask Boeing by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Just kidding ("this message will self-destruct...").

      Those thermite / hard drive slag units seem intriguing, though. I wonder if I could rig up the same kind of thing.

      Probably not in my laptop. No room.

  3. Off to a questionable start by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Electronic devices are built to last...." Sorry, but you just lost me, right there.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:Off to a questionable start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True for consumer grade. Military grade devices are built to last and function in harsh conditions.

    2. Re:Off to a questionable start by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Electronic devices are built to last until you actually put them to use."

      Are you un-lost yet?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Off to a questionable start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Electronic devices are built to last...." Sorry, but you just lost me, right there.

      Maybe you're either buying the wrong devices/parts? I bought a TV in 1968 that was still working in 2002 when I got rid of it. There's a working Apple G3 in my daughter's bedroom. My current TV is ten years old and still going strong. I have a pair of 30 year old loudspeakers (I did have to replace the woofers, the tweeters and squawkers are next).

      OTOH I bought a used Sony amplifier that it only took me three months to burn up, and a Pioneer that replaced it that lasted for six. No matter how much or little you pay (you do NOT always get what you pay for, but you usually pay for what you get), if you buy cheap shit, it won't last. Electronics are like everything else; there are rock solid (both expensive and inexpensive) ones that last forever, and there's cheap shit (often expensive) that falls apart a week after the warrantee's up.

      There is absolutely no reason whatever for any electronics to go bad, save bad design, cheap parts, or planned obsolescence (which I consider to be Evil with a capital E).

    4. Re:Off to a questionable start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a PC power supply that is 15 years old, which I have no doubt will last another 15. $250 for 500 Watts. Expensive? Not compared to the cost of 15 years of bargain brand power supplies.

    5. Re:Off to a questionable start by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ditto with the newer stuff. Old stuff like CRT TVs, VCRs, etc. do last a long time. I still have and use them!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Off to a questionable start by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Ditto with the newer stuff. Old stuff like CRT TVs, VCRs, etc. do last a long time. I still have and use them!

      There are two reasons why "stuff doesn't last like it used to".

      1) Survivors last. Old stuff the died out years ago are probably all thrown in the trash. Potentially a good chunk of the stuff that "still works" today was probably already thrown out by everyone else as they broke and they upgraded. No one remembers the stuff they junked, and the ones that still work are fondly remembered by those who still have them.

      2) Stuff was overengineered back then because we didn't know better, and it cost way more because of it. When your TV costs you a year or more of disposable income, it better last because they were so expensive. These days, a TV, even a big screen one is only a few month's worth of income. Heck, most of /. could probably afford the fancy dandy OLED ones in under a year if they saved.

    7. Re:Off to a questionable start by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      it cost way more because of it

      I can attest to this. The previous TV I owned was a 35" Panasonic tube TV I bought in 1995. I paid about $1100 or so at the time. I just bought a 46" Samsung LED LCD 3D TV, and it was under $1000. And considering adjusting for inflation rates and such, that is a lot cheaper than what I paid for my old TV. $1100 was a lot of dough in the Clinton years...

      However, my previous TV lasted 17 years and I have no doubt that the new one won't last anywhere near that long.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:Off to a questionable start by antdude · · Score: 1

      To me, those new big HDTVs aren't even that cheap. I also hate changing and upgrading so often.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  4. Darpa should talk to the guys who wrote Duke Nukem by NeumannCons · · Score: 1

    They were the top vapor developers for *years*. They've got the talent do this correctly.

    Paul

  5. If the Nexus 7 is anything to go by by Threni · · Score: 1

    You could just as Asus to build them. I don't know anyone who received a functioning model until they'd sent it back at least twice.

    1. Re:If the Nexus 7 is anything to go by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have been building my own PCs for almost 15 years and have never once received a bad board. Now, i have heard they had issues in the mid 90's, but that was like 20 years ago.

    2. Re:If the Nexus 7 is anything to go by by biodata · · Score: 1

      I bought two and they are fine, hence they are 200% reliable in my experience.

      --
      Korma: Good
    3. Re:If the Nexus 7 is anything to go by by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Funny, I was thinking more HP/Compaq... But they wanted "on command", where these would provide "Whenever the mood suits it"...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:If the Nexus 7 is anything to go by by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Ditto - but make mine 300%.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  6. Existing already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What problem is with /dev/urandom and dd?

    Or how about placing 1g C-4 explosive to storage medium/microboard what can be blow up with command? :D

    1. Re:Existing already by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Former is too slow and relies on power... Latter could work if set up right, although thermite on the storage unit would be better. No explosion, more damage to the target.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Existing already by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I believe they might take longer than a dissolving disk platter. I can't know that, but I believe that might be the case. DD might be interrupted if your command post is overrun, or penetrated. A simple signal to dissolve is probably irreversible, and depending on the mechanism, might be much faster.

      Of course, for dissolving platters to work, I guess you'd have to abandon iron disks, for some kind of a matrix that holds iron in suspension. That might be more complicated, or less, than making plain magnetic iron disks.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  7. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bucket trap + acid ?

  8. I thought we already knew by gewalker · · Score: 2

    Nuke it from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

    Looks like a flaw in the triggering code that allowed the other team to trigger the self-destruct could be a very costly mistake.

    1. Re:I thought we already knew by Antipater · · Score: 1

      Looks like a flaw in the triggering code that allowed the other team to trigger the self-destruct could be a very costly mistake.

      TFA is bugging out on my work computer, but I think "battlefield" is the wrong theater to be thinking of for this kind of stuff. The intended use should be for the diplomatic corps. At an embassy in a hostile country, you want your data to be destroyable at a moment's notice. They have superpowered incinerators ready to burn all their documents should something go wrong. This would be an extra layer of security for all their electronic data storage. And the "other team" isn't going to trigger the self-destruct, because they want to see the data, not destroy it.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    2. Re:I thought we already knew by berashith · · Score: 1

      so supervillians really do include self-destruct buttons on their cool gear!

    3. Re:I thought we already knew by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      TFA is about battlefield electronics. Embassies have been using things like thermite-encased hard drives for a very long time already. But the GP raises an interesting question about what happens when an enemy has the ability to press a button and turn all your most critical battlefield C&C gear into slag.

    4. Re:I thought we already knew by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They have superpowered incinerators ready to burn all their documents should something go wrong.
      ...
      And the "other team" isn't going to trigger the self-destruct, because they want to see the data, not destroy it.

      1) Wait until "the other team" enters your superpowered incinerator to see the data.

      2) Activate your superpowered incinerator to kill two birds with one stone.

      3) Prophet! ...scratch that, I meant "Jesus" of course.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  9. At your next IPhone contract dispute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Company may have the upper hand. "Pay up or your IPhone gets it!"

  10. Obligatory Inspector Gadget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This message will self destruct!

    1. Re:Obligatory Inspector Gadget by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Kids these days. Should be "Good morning, Mr. Phelps."

    2. Re:Obligatory Inspector Gadget by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      >This message will self destruct!

      Kids these days. Should be "Good morning, Mr. Phelps."

      but nobody under 40 knows what you are talking about.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:Obligatory Inspector Gadget by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Kids these days. Should be "Good morning, Mr. Phelps."

      but nobody under 40 knows what you are talking about.

      Or even worse, thinks you're tapping into Tom Cruise.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    4. Re:Obligatory Inspector Gadget by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Kids these days. Should be "Good morning, Mr. Phelps."

      but nobody under 40 knows what you are talking about.

      Or even worse, thinks you're tapping into Tom Cruise.

      I thought only Miscavige was tapping Tom Cruise? He still trapped in the closet?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  11. We already know how to do this... by rmmeyer · · Score: 1

    Obfuscated electronics design contest: solving a simple problem in a complex manner. Destruction of battlefield electronics is not a new science. A small gridwork of thermite inside the case and a small igniter. Trigger how you will.

    Don't we have better things to spend research money on?

    1. Re:We already know how to do this... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Obfuscated electronics design contest: solving a simple problem in a complex manner. Destruction of battlefield electronics is not a new science. A small gridwork of thermite inside the case and a small igniter. Trigger how you will.

      Sure, and you can also strap a few pounds of C-4 onto it. But it sounds like DARPA wants to design them to literally dissolve, i.e. a non-violent change that won't burn through the case orand kill people nearby if you aren't careful. TFA mentions medical electronics that dissolve in biofluid, so I'm assuming it's similar to that. Cases where using thermite to simply burn the board isn't an option.

      As to why, I'm not sure, but it's DARPA, their answer usually tends to be "to see if we can."

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:We already know how to do this... by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you don't accidentally trigger it while it's on you...

      I suspect burning thermite going down your back/legs would be quite painful.

      Though if they can do it with the precision to destroy the storage unit but not the casing, that could be ok. I think the idea for dissolving electronics is "If it gets out of the case, nobody gets burning holes cut through their flesh".

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  12. Well, until I see it by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    It's just VAPRware. Actually after I see it, it's probably VAPRware too.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Well, until I see it by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

      There are some Slashdot articles I click through just to ensure an obligatory remark is made. Good job.

      --
      Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
  13. AN-M14 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not use Thermite? Does DARPA build datacenters in Irak that would take hours to destroy? (Not meant to be sarcastic, I have no fucking clue).

    1. Re:AN-M14 by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      That's the current plan --- you have thermite charges to destroy equipment (and sledgehammers to break down and consolidate equipment into suitably small piles), and ``document disintegration barrels'' for all the paperwork --- the problems are:

        - takes time
        - requires warehousing special-purpose munitions which have to be rotated (a water-damaged DDR-55 will _not_ completely burn and when one attempts to destroy it by setting off a thermite charge on top of it will then spew bits of burning thermite in all directions DAMHIKT)
        - requires special training for personnel
        - is not something one wants to be doing on an aircraft or in some other enclosed space

      William

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    2. Re:AN-M14 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for those points, appreciate it.

  14. Dumb from the first idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electronic equipment which are destroyed just sending a signal to it ? Sure I'm pretty sure that the first thing you ennemy will try letting you with nothing else than your eyes to cry ...

    1. Re:Dumb from the first idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a language in which you sound coherent?

  15. suicide battery systems can be done today and they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suicide battery systems can be done today and they don't need a command to kill the data.

  16. Simples. by bmo · · Score: 1

    Destroying a VAPR device should be as easy as sending a signal to it or placing the device within certain conditions e.g. extreme heat or cold, that triggers the rapid destruction process."

    That's easy enough.

    I just put my phone through the wash. I can assure you that it's quite dead now.

    --
    BMO

  17. Storage destruction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've often considered rigging a rotating magnetic field mechanism by the HDDs, if only to perplex the pigs. (I'm not a criminal, but I totally expect the random unwarranted intrusion, since I live in the U.S.)

  18. I've developed this already by exploder · · Score: 1

    I have a brilliant design for electronics that stop functioning when exposed to extreme heat. I call them "electronics". I'm willing to license my technology, which is applicable to other resources too, like clothing, houses, and enemy combatants.

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  19. Molecular computers by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

    I could see this being accomplished through DNA computing, where you literally kill the device.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  20. At least two purposes by advid.net · · Score: 1

    This isn't a specific DARPA program, there are two main goals, which could lead to very distinct classes of techniques:

    • - Self-destruction for electronic to avoid enemy retroengineering
    • - Electronic that disolves itself in organic fluids after medical use in situ
  21. Re:Asus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only had one DOA out of eight builds. YMMV

  22. That's all we need.. by gallondr00nk · · Score: 1

    Give it a decade and the internals of every new electronic consumer device will magically dissolve when it gets to two years old.

    Planned obsolescence, indeed.

    1. Re:That's all we need.. by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a comment I heard a few years back to the effect that the "millennium bug" [remember that?] would make things MORE reliable as the calculation to find the end of warranty period would roll over and thus the device/package/unit wouldn't know when to start failing.

      Back to the original topic, remote destruction isn't new - dissolving may be a new twist though.

    2. Re:That's all we need.. by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they can be marketed as "green" devices. Hemp PCBs! Plastics derived from plant matter. In an emergency, you could eat it! Just please remember to remove the battery first.

    3. Re:That's all we need.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There only needs to be a clause on the warranty statement: "Deploying at combat zones reduces the warranty to one business week from the deployment day." Problem solved by legal innovation.

  23. Hardly new by Coisiche · · Score: 1

    From the things I've heard from friends and acquaintances, mobile phone manufacturers already employ this technology.

  24. This post.. by Morky · · Score: 1

    ..will self-destruct in five seconds.

  25. Easy as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thermite?

  26. Re:suicide battery systems can be done today and t by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    or having a reverse wired circuit on one or more electrolytic capacitors (which would also provide a handy source for a trigger acid)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  27. kewl ! by TTL0 · · Score: 1

    Great Idea ! What could possibly go wrong ????

    --
    Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
  28. 1995 called... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    The Jolly Roger wants to tell you about a wonderful thing called the Thermite Reaction.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:1995 called... by JazzLad · · Score: 1
      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  29. That's fairly easy. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    Remember how electronics used to be embedded in epoxy?

    Do the same but replace epoxy with C4. Drive one GPIO pin to a blasting cap. The electronics will be "dissolved" completely.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:That's fairly easy. by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Why stop with C4? Build the case out of Plutonium 239, surrounded by C4, surrounded in turn by compressed hydrogen, encased in a hard shell of cobalt. Five failed logins in a row triggers the detonator.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    2. Re:That's fairly easy. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the radiation from Pu239 will keep compromise any computational value of the device, corrupting the memory continuously.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:That's fairly easy. by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunately, the radiation from Pu239 will keep
      > compromise any computational value of the device

      Nothing a little depleted uranium shielding can't solve.

      So yeah, between the depleted uranium and the plutonium and the C4 and the compressed hydrogen and the cobalt, what would otherwise be a handheld device is now approximately the size of a large hope chest. But that's a small price to pay for ensuring that your precious data cannot fall into enemy hands. So much more efficient than just encrypting everything.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    4. Re:That's fairly easy. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Told ya a few grams of C4 will suffice!

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  30. Re:Magic Smoke by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    I saw blue smoke way back in the 60s. I thought this research was already done.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  31. Surprised the DOD hasn't heard of thermite by alispguru · · Score: 1

    Just put a bag of iron oxide and aluminum powder next to the hard disk and stick a piece of magnesium ribbon into it.

    One match, and I guarantee no readable data will be found in the resulting puddle of slag.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  32. Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SONY is using something similar since decades, don't they have a patent on the SONY Switch(tm)(r)?

    1. Re:Patents? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! You beat me to it. Yes. Sony was the first thing I thought when I read the summary. "Don't they already have a patent on this?!"

  33. Mobile Phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mobile phones have been doing this for years! All you need is C4 add-on pack.

  34. FPGAs would make this trivial by kjc197 · · Score: 2

    Easy - Make the heart of the system an FPGA, and in the scenario of the device being lost / obtained / dropped either:

    (a) Erase the FPGA prom and reset - this would cause the FPGA to lose its configuration data, and no longer function without a rebuild
    or
    (b) Assuming that they are using bitstream encryption, delete or burn out the key - again, the device would no longer program.

  35. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a product that isn't complete until it is vaporware.

  36. Everything old is new again by VAXcat · · Score: 2

    Back in the early 60s, there was still a vast amount of military electronics surplus available from WWI and the Korean wars. This cornucopia of gear was the delight of all of us young radio and electronics enthusiasts. The amateur radio press of the time warned that occasionally equipment would turn up that still had thermite scuttling charges in place - apparently some bits of gear were sensitive enough that they included thermite bombs built in that could be easily triggered when capture was imminent. I never personally saw any, but saw pictures in the journals of the time. So, anyway, this is hardly a new idea

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    1. Re:Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect they want something more flexible and less destructive to neighboring equipment. A thermite charge is fine if you're about to be overrun or the device is in enemy hands, less valuable for destroy-after-reading or espionage resistant computers. Remember the trick of freezing RAM to retain the data long enough to get it into a new computer to read encryption keys.

  37. certain conditions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of my electronics already have this feature. Extreme heat will trigger a rapid destruction process.

  38. Mentats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solution: Mentats. Load them up on Spice and they are good to go. When the data needs to be quickly destroyed, shoot them in the face in a pinch.

    1. Re:Mentats by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Please. Juice of Sappho.
      As David Lynch wrote:
      It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.

  39. Mr. Phelps by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Mr. Phelps, your mission, should you decide to accept it...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  40. I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'M MELTING! I'M MELTING!

  41. Nothing new - it's like the self incinerating tape by fnj · · Score: 1

    As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

    *poof*

  42. Current U.S. Landmines do this by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Antipersonnel landmines used by the United States, with the exception of those now warehoused for use in Korea, do not have long-term residual effects because they are self-destructing and/or self-deactivating"

    Reference here

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Current U.S. Landmines do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Antipersonnel landmines used by the United States, with the exception of those now warehoused for use in Korea, do not have long-term residual effects because they are self-destructing and/or self-deactivating"

      Yeah just like the summary said:

      However, if during a hostile situation such a device has to be left behind or gets dropped, it will continue to function and could end up giving the enemy an advantage.

      I guess you gotta think about these things when you constantly create new enemies because you don't have any other effective way to keep your economy afloat. You destroyed your own manufacturing base with "free trade" (it's "free" trade when US regular folk don't have good jobs, but the corporations love the cheap overseas labor!). You don't have anything except Imaginary Property to export and in the Information Age that's not so good for you. Hey war is big BIG business. You need some pointless war every decade or so. It's the only reason the US economy hasn't already tanked. WWII got you out of the Great Depression and your leaders never forgot the lesson. Even if the rest of you did.

      So yeah, for freedom, to liberate them, for the flag, for democracy, whatever justification it takes. Long as it's some little nation that isn't REALLY a threat to you. Doesn't matter if they have oil. That's not what you're there for. You're there for the defense contracts and multibillion-dollar budgets. It's so shameful the way honorable people who love their country join the military thinking they're doing a good thing and they end up being used and thrown away for such useless wars.

    2. Re:Current U.S. Landmines do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really great! I was not aware that we'd implemented a fix for the serious problem of abandoned land-mines.

    3. Re:Current U.S. Landmines do this by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if the fail-safe is working as intended. I'm not saying every mine suffers this problem, just that if enough are deployed, there's bound to be a few.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:Current U.S. Landmines do this by tibman · · Score: 1

      The higher the rank, the longer the mines can be deployed for.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  43. Flashy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    One match, and I guarantee no readable data will be found in the resulting puddle of slag.

    Perhaps they are looking for a slightly less ostentatious display of destruction in order to attract less attention.

    1. Re:Flashy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silent destruction is also easy. Have all the sensitive stuff on a single chip, which should be easy enough with an embedded device.

      All you need then, is a slightly unusual chip casing, that contains an ampulle with concentrated hydrochloric acid. Give it a whack, and the glass breaks. Acid eats away silicone and the interesting pattern of transistors/wires on top of it. This happens fast, and the electric power to the chip will just make it worse. Unlike a chip zapped with overvoltage, there will be nothing interesting left to see with electron microscopes or similiar fancy equipment.

      Hit the thing (or push the self-destruct button that merely is a nail aligned with the ampulle) and the chip is dead.

      For a temperature trigger, glue a metal bar to the ampulle. The metal should have a different thermal expansion from the glass. Too hot or too cold, and the glass gets broken.

      The acid could still be contained inside the chip casing, so they won't immediately know that you used the self-destruct.

      To really stump attempts at disassembly, consider adding hydrofluoric acid too.
       

  44. Re:Magic Smoke by mspohr · · Score: 1

    I've destroyed lots of electronics during "experiments" to "improve functionality". It's really easy. Just wire something wrong or let a tool slip and it lets the blue smoke out. As we all know, electronics run on blue smoke and when you let the blue smoke out, they stop working.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  45. Mission Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your mission if you choose to accept it

    1. Re:Mission Impossible by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Original episodes: "After listening, this recording will self-destruct in 10 seconds..."

      New episodes: "After finding pi to 5,000,000,000 decimal places, this Linux cluster will self-destruct in 10 seconds..."

  46. All consumer electronics should be built like this by bobthesungeek76036 · · Score: 1

    What a wonderful anti-theft strategy!!! Laptop or iPhone stolen? Just logon, click the button and let the satellite send the self-destruct signal...

    --
    Karma: Bad
  47. Understand the problem space... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This actually pretty simple to do. Just make sure all of the electronics are running some version of Windows.

  48. Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha!

  49. RAM by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Use general purpose electronics and store everything important in RAM. Virtualise if necessary.

  50. certain conditions e.g. extreme heat... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I believe thermite has been around since about 1900.

    This iPhone will selfdestruct in 10 seconds...

  51. Real world use by sjbe · · Score: 1

    That would hand The Enemy an easy method of sabotage.

    Only if the designer and/or user of the equipment is rather stupid.

    If you want the authorized user to be the one to determine when the gear should (and should not) be sacrificed, it has to be "destroy on command".

    It's pretty easy to think of circumstances where you would want it destroyed for anyone except the intended user. Sensitive document transport, various black ops activities, etc. If you are a spy you might very well want your electronics to dissolve unless someone knows the correct password.

  52. Re:Magic Smoke by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

    Now I wish I could find a wiring web page I saw a long time ago.

    Something like:

    Always wire 5v to 5v, 3v to 3v and 12v to 12v.
    5v to ground will make baby jesus cry.
    5v to 12v will make baby jesus's head explode.

    --
    Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  53. User Circumvention! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Somehow I see this being circumvented by users. Just like other means of security such as annoying passwords can be defeated by users and a simple posted note, I am sure users afraid of continually loosing there data at any time will backup whatever they are doing to something that doesn't self destruct if you knock it the wrong way or whatever.

  54. DeskStar by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    IBM could not be reached for comment.

  55. Easy to destroy != Easy to access by sjbe · · Score: 1

    But the GP raises an interesting question about what happens when an enemy has the ability to press a button and turn all your most critical battlefield C&C gear into slag.

    If it truly is that easy to do then you deserve to lose the battle. Just because something can be destroyed easily doesn't mean it has to be easy for anyone to destroy it.

    1. Re:Easy to destroy != Easy to access by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      That's the "our encryption is unbreakable" argument. Let me know how that works out for you.

  56. Still more concentration of power and control by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    If this technology is realized and becomes cheap, any bets on whether or not it becomes the standard for consumer electronics?

    After all, it's the ultimate kill switch. Whether it's government agencies looking to disable citizens' tech devices for whatever spurious 'justification' they make up, or corporations arbitrarily and absolutely enforcing 'planned obsolescence', I predict that very bad things will be done with this if it ever becomes sufficiently cost-effective to be mass-produced.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  57. Protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mechanism is trivial. A small thermite charge encapsulated in the epoxy next to the die. Probably would not need enough to do anything more than bubble the epoxy. It would probably need to be vented so it didn't explode instead of melting the die.

    Another option would be electrically ignitable magnesium heatsinks on key components.

    I suspect they're really looking for a trigger protocol, not a mechanism. For example, if authorized user gets more than a certain distance from the unit, it self destructs unless it's been told "wait for me to return".

  58. Vapour Ware by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I think Boeing already has such technology in their Dreamliners.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  59. Battlefield Earth comes to mind... by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Aside from L. Ron Hubbard being cuckoo for Coca Puffs, he had a similar idea for dissolving circuits in his novel Battlefield Earth. He wrote some great Science Fiction, however I do not endorse Scientology, Dianetics or any of his other cult ideologies.

  60. Sci-Fi Tech by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

    I remember in the book Battlefield Earth, the invaders had protected their technology by making a dummy circuit with traditional methods, but etching the actual circuit at a molecular level to make it invisible. When the system detected that it was being tampered with or opened without the proper methods, it blew the dummy circuit to look like it was booby-trapped, and then wiped out the actual circuit to eliminate all the traces. Anyone who didn't know how to properly work around the tamper would end up with a dead board. I'm curious, but do things like that exist in modern hardware? I'd love to have the community chime in on how forensic analysis and/or reverse engineering of circuits is done these days, and methods of preventing it from occurring.

  61. Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...vaporware.

  62. Self-destructive chips - already done by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

    Heard a variation on this story more than 20 years ago...

    The HCF instruction was built into the motorola 6800.

  63. Great: *real* VAPRware by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And for alla you Mission Impossible fans, that's *not* my reaction.

    Chief: Max, when the password prompt comes up, you've got three chances to get it right, otherwise it will self destruct.
    Max: Right, chief, here's a bad password (types) here's a second bad password (types) Now I'll type the correct one...
    Cheif: Max, what's happened?
    Max: I must have mistyped the good password....

    And I can see the folks who use the coffee cup holder on their computer doing this....

                    mark

  64. what could go wrong tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should probably go here

  65. Need to make suits for politicians that do this by dtotheatothevtothee · · Score: 1

    If they are not going to wear "Nascar" jackets with patched of all the folks in their pockets they could at least make these suits that could vaporize them if needed...

  66. Land Mines by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Mines that would 'expire' so they will not fire after a set time would be a step forward (pun intended).

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  67. This message will self-destruct in five seconds by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 1

    Well chief, I guess I should be off then. I'm always on duty!

    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
  68. Unique self destruct sequence by sjbe · · Score: 1

    That's the "our encryption is unbreakable" argument. Let me know how that works out for you.

    Exactly how do you propose The Enemy figure out the right key for each device? You can easily have a unique destruct code for each device which is vaguely close to a one time pad setup. The only way for The Enemy to destroy the device is to either A) get the code from The Good Guys or B) crack the encryption. If the device has a self destruct timer (or accelerometer or geo-locator or...) and the encryption is sufficiently robust it could be very difficult to crack in a sufficiently short time even with physical access. Without physical access it could be effectively impossible. Even cracking one device wouldn't enable The Enemy to do anything with the others unless The Good Guys do something stupid like reuse keys.

    Basically a well designed system would be pretty hard to disable. The device just has to last long enough to do its job, not be impregnable for the rest of time.

    1. Re:Unique self destruct sequence by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      It will not be well-designed.

      So let's wait for them to implement that and watch the fireworks when Anonymous destroys the whole U.S. military.

      Not that anyone would notice now that the DoD ensures no soldier ever sees real combat, only mercenaries do nowadays, because those have zero oversight. Will be interesting when they're the only ones with functioning kit in whichever Latveriastan.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
  69. Oops, premature self-destruction, sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Electronic devices are built to last...." Sorry, but you just lost me, right there.

    The original text, which unfortunately partially self-destructed before you had a chance to read it, read as follows:

    "Electronic devices are built to last until you need them..."

  70. Re:Nothing new - it's like the self incinerating t by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Fun fact--in the original pilot and several episodes in the first season (including some after the tape had been introduced), the message was on a self-incinerating *vinyl record*.

  71. DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine how this would be misused by the RIAA and the media police to have your content or your media player self-destruct if it doesn't have the right license key.

  72. Tool for privacy by MDMurphy · · Score: 1

    The civilian opportunities for this sound great. When compelled to give up a password or your devices are otherwise being examined without your permission, the same function used to protect private data.

    Q: What's your password?
    A: Phe!ps
    Q: What's that smoke smell?

  73. Makes sense for access infrastructure by Danilushka · · Score: 1

    If they destroy the keys, IPs, and URLs used to access hosted data but not hosted data, it would prevent easy access. People can be tortured to give up information so they had cyanide teeth to bite on but devices are easy—just use them even if you have to break into their security—in time you can. So maybe this is the equivalent of a cyanide tooth for access electronics.

  74. The wrong person, the wrong button, at the wrong.. by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    Lt. [Redacted] : "Where's the abort button?!"
    Sound of deep throated rumbling in the background
    Sgt. [Redacted] : "It melted, sir"
    Lt. [Redacted] : "WHAT?! Why on God's green Earth would it MELT?!"
    Fighting to be heard over what is obviously the sound of an rocket lifting off
    Sgt. [Redacted] : "It's a safety feature, sir. To preserve the integrity of the mission."
    Lt. [Redacted] : "FERCRYIN' OUT LOUD!! WE'RE STILL IN THE LAUNCH T..."
    BZZZT!*~

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  75. Bad News if this becomes Commerical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi hope Darpa keeps this technology strictly military. Like all humorist scenarios above, they could make force obsolete a reality.

    If a company thinks your not doing payments on your device, *ZAP* its taken care of. Trial time would become literally take new meaning. Though if they did go with this route, there properly be some safety concerns.

  76. Mission Impossible by pierreboulez · · Score: 1

    Glad to see I'm not the only person on this board old enough to remember the original Mission Impossible TV series: "This tape will self-destruct in 5 seconds" followed by a smoking real-to-real tape player.

  77. imagine the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darpa seeks to control wealth with money that dissolves on command.
    Darpa seeks to control violence with bullets that dissolve on command.
    Darpa seeks to control speech with electronics that dissolve on command.

  78. Extreme temp already destroys electronics by mysidia · · Score: 1

    placing the device within certain conditions e.g. extreme heat or cold, that triggers the rapid destruction process.

    Extreme heat already destroys electronics

    A little bonfire or some thermite or black powder should be very effective, unless the electronics were intentionally designed to withstand extreme heat....

  79. Just like some cars... by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    I was thinking proximity detections... if it is too far away from an RFID on the person, then self-destruct (as opposed to some cars which just lock).

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  80. Your mission, Jim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... should you decide to accept it, is... As usual, should you or any member of your I.M. Force be captured or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your existence.

    This VAPRware will self-destruct in five seconds.

    Good luck, Jim.

  81. Obvious technology-protection system by PacRim+Jim · · Score: 0

    Why don't a drone self-destruct after descending below a certain altitude, at GPS coordinates other than those of the location where it is suppose to land.

  82. Right... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So let's wait for them to implement that and watch the fireworks when Anonymous destroys the whole U.S. military.

    If you truly think such a thing will happen then you are dumber than a Styrofoam submarine.

    Not that anyone would notice now that the DoD ensures no soldier ever sees real combat, only mercenaries do nowadays, because those have zero oversight.

    I have family in the army serving in the Middle East who would be very surprised to hear that they never see any real combat. Is the view nice from the cheap seats?

  83. Electronic voting - I fucking told you YEARS ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just now your starting to understand, The HARDWARE can be hacked at the doping level
    The only way to find out is to destroy every electronic voting machine. a catch 22 in itself.

    This is why electronics in elections can't be validated.
    My logic trap can destroy other logic circuits. Test as you will what's destroyed is gone.

    Fixing this isn't the end of the problem.

    Next up ... The Electoral collage... You know where all that popular vote goes down the toilet as the media eliminate candidates, and the two party system kicks in...

  84. Just float a story in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that US devices are rigged with hand-removing charges, drop a few such devices in a "battle" and let the enemy corroborate the information for themselves. Repeat every few years and, viola! "US Computer devices will blow your hands off if you pick them up."

    You can thank me by lowering my fsking tax bill.

  85. and the emerging of the next-gen malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can just imagine reading some news after no more than a year: "New malware will trigger the dissolve feature of xxxx device". Of course they would need to run Windows for that ...