Slashdot Mirror


How Activists Tried To Destroy GPS With Axes

HughPickens.com writes Ingrid Burrington writes in The Atlantic about a little-remembered incident that occurred in 1992 when activists Keith Kjoller and Peter Lumsdaine snuck into a Rockwell International facility in Seal Beach, California and in what they called an "act of conscience" used wood-splitting axes to break into two clean rooms containing nine satellites being built for the US government. Lumsdaine took his axe to one of the satellites, hitting it over 60 times. The Brigade's target was the Navigation Satellite Timing And Ranging (NAVSTAR) Program and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Both men belonged to the Lockheed Action Collective, a protest group that staged demonstrations and blockaded the entrance at the Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. test base in Santa Cruz in 1990. They said they intentionally took axes to the $50-million Navstar Global Position System satellite to bring the public's attention to what they termed the government's attempt to control the world through modern technology. "I had to slow the deployment of this system (which) makes conventional warfare much more lethal and nuclear war winnable in the eyes of some," an emotional Kjoller told the judge before receiving an 18-month sentence. "It's something that I couldn't let go by. I tried to do what was right rather than what was convenient."

Burrington recently contacted Lumsdaine to learn more about the Brigade and Lumsdaine expresses no regrets for his actions. Even if the technology has more and more civilian uses, Lumsdaine says, GPS remains "military in its origins, military in its goals, military in its development and [is still] controlled by the military." Today, Lumsdaine views the thread connecting GPS and drones as part of a longer-term movement by military powers toward automated systems and compared today's conditions to the opening sequence of Terminator 2, where Sarah Connor laments that the survivors of Skynet's nuclear apocalypse "lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines." "I think in a general way people need to look for those psychological, spiritual, cultural, logistical, technological weak points and leverage points and push hard there," says Lumsdaine. "It is so easy for all of us as human beings to take a deep breath and step aside and not face how very serious the situation is, because it's very unpleasant to look at the effort and potential consequences of challenging the powers that be. But the only thing higher than the cost of resistance is the cost of not resisting."

25 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Ok then... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...Step away from the crazy person...

    In fairness, concerns about the military, government, and global power in the hands of a few is not a bad concern, but this guy is just nuts...

    You aren't going to stop the march towards the future this way, you'll just be locked up and ignored...

    There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

    1. Re:Ok then... by Racemaniac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are ways to go about it, but this isn't it...

      I'm curious, which ways are that?
      I find it hard to say what to think about such people. They're on the far end of the scale, but they do have a point. We all react more strongly to some things than to others, and they focus on that. What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they? Seriously, prove them wrong (or rather, they're being proved right a bit more every day). It's just not the immediate end of the world as they may view it, but is being more sensitive to such things being crazy?

    2. Re:Ok then... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's just not the immediate end of the world as they may view it, but is being more sensitive to such things being crazy?

      Their claims are what identify them as crazy.

      From the summary:

      Today, Lumsdaine views the thread connecting GPS and drones as part of a longer-term movement by military powers toward automated systems and compared today's conditions to the opening sequence of Terminator 2, where Sarah Connor laments that the survivors of Skynet's nuclear apocalypse "lived only to face a new nightmare: the war against the machines."

      When they start comparing reality to sci-fi apocalypse movies then there is a problem.

      And when they start destroying things because of it, they've gone into "crazy" territory.

    3. Re:Ok then... by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They've identified a legitimate problem, although they don't have a solution.

      As it turned out, technology has wound up monitoring our daily lives. We have what amounts to a Telescreen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... monitoring everything we read and write.

      Except for cash, federal agencies monitor every bank deposit and withdrawal, and every financial transaction.

      (That's how Elliot Spitzer got caught hiring an escort -- and he was a multimillionaire governor of New York State.)

      And they can seize cash.

      If you're ever arrested, you have a police record that you can never escape.

      We have license plate scanners and facial identification in the works that will be able to follow every car and every face.

      The government is owned by campaign contributors. We spend $1 billion on every presidential candidate, and if you can't pay you don't play.

      Maybe when there's a threat to the public welfare that everybody is ignoring, smashing a $50 million satellite will raise the alarm and get some people interested. Sometimes it works. Unfortunately it didn't work this time.

      He's lucky he only got 18 months. Today he might have been convicted on a terrorist offense, and gotten 20 years, longer than a lot of murder sentences.

      I wish he had touched off a movement to protect our privacy, but it didn't work. Good try, though.

    4. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Let's see.

      Ballot box gets you ignored when your candidate inevitably loses.
      Soap box gets you jailed for disturbing the peace of the willfully ignorant.
      Jury box gets you fined for contempt when you won't agree with your peers.
      Ammo box gets you killed when you take up arms against superior forces.

      Where's your liberty again? Oh right. You imagined it.

    5. Re:Ok then... by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Science fiction, as a whole, has no innate purpose.

      Some science fiction his constructive criticism of society. Some is totally nonconstructive criticism, some is about abstract philosophical concepts, and some is just about cool robots fighting.

      Terminator leans toward the latter.

    6. Re:Ok then... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?

      For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax. Even a sledgehammer or a hacksaw would be better. Second, this sort of Luddite behavior is a terrible strategy. It only keeps you from being able to compete/fight with machines. Any side which wins such a war is going to be a heavy technology player.

      Third, this sort of thinking has already resulted in a considerable disparity to humanity's disadvantage. After all, there's almost no regulatory and cultural obstacles to improving machines (or for that matter a variety of lab animals) provided by human societies, but there's a vast number of obstacles to improving humans. That's because we value the lives of the few people who could be exposed to harm in a medical experiment more than the billions of people whose lives could be improved greatly by the results of the medical experiments.

    7. Re:Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have watched the terminator, and if you think there's meaningful subtext there, it might be that James Cameron is a self loathing man hater. Or he wrote that in the hopes of getting laid. I mean, hell, that quote right there. Colt, Smith and Wesson, those aren't names of guns. Those are names of companies. Guns tend be named more like 9mm, or AK-47, or AR-15, or 1911.

      And god forbid if a company be named after the founder. Cuz you know, that only happens in the land of fire arms. That quote you just threw out it what's commonly known at pretentiousness trying to come across as insightful.

    8. Re:Ok then... by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Privacy of whom? The same general public posting their entire lives all over facebook and twitter?

      I also wonder if these 2 idiots have twigged that the entire internet is also a former military project. I bet that doesn't stop them using it though.

      They're just a pair of paranoid crazies. Calling them luddites is being unfair to the latter. At least luddites had a sane reason for what they did , not just OMG , The Sky Will Fall!!!

    9. Re:Ok then... by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We have a consensus.

      Protip: If your anti-government, anti-military, anti-establishment stance is greeted with no warmness on /., you probably need to do a little soul searching.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:Ok then... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A man also painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, discovered a vaccine for polio, and invented Cookie Crisp cereal. It's almost as if some people can do good things and some people can do bad things. And sometimes, and this is totally crazy, the same person can do some good things and some bad things!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re: Ok then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Women have greater ambitions. Why stop at shooting a guy when you can sink a ship?

    12. Re:Ok then... by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sarah Connor is supposed to come accross as an unreasonable, crazy sociopath, because she is. She is a bad mother, is quick to resort to violence and killing, and has an irrational hatred of men, however much we might understand how she was driven to that perspective. In that quote there she bangs on about the mystical power birth and pregnancy and its life affirming power shortly after trying to murder a man in cold blood in the house his wife and children are sleeping in. You are not supposed to like her, pity her maybe, but not like her.

      Compare her to Ripley from Alien and Aliens, who is a far more idealized. Connor from Terminator 2 is a critique of a particular brand of feminine fetishizing feminism, not an endorsement of it.

    13. Re:Ok then... by Xyrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What i'm wondering most, you start off by calling them crazy, but are they?

      For starters, if we get into a war with the machines, we're going to need heavier firepower than an ax...

      For starters, to even get to a stage where we would even possibly be at war with machines would imply that we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that level of technological advancement. It is far more likely that we destroy our civilization within the next century through a mixture of extremism, resource wars, and general human stupidity than developing some sort of AI that will wipe us out.

      The guy in the article is crazy. Technology is not the problem. People are, and you're not going to convince people to support your cause by doing pointless/crazy things like hacking up satellites with an ax.

      --
      ~X~
    14. Re:Ok then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.

      The incompetent leave violence until it's the last resort, by which time it is too late for it to do any good. The competent get to violence much sooner.

      L. Long

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Well done, smart guy by maugle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congrats, you just took an axe and destroyed a multimillion dollar satellite. Clearly the backers of the GPS system will now see the light and shut the project down forever ... ... or maybe they'll just build another satellite and make the average taxpayer pay an extra dollar.
    Seriously, jackass, you don't "bring the public's attention to the government's attempt to control the world through modern technology" through actions that make you look like a frothing-at-the-mouth luddite.

    For all his talk of doing what's right instead of what's convenient, the actual right way to bring his concerns about the government and the military to the public's eye would have been to find like-minded people, form a group, start some grassroots activism and some protests to get exposure, and work towards getting his issues on a ballot. But, no, that would be too slow and inconvienient, so he decided to go the easy route of instant gratification by smashing some satellites.

    1. Re:Well done, smart guy by nbauman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For all his talk of doing what's right instead of what's convenient, the actual right way to bring his concerns about the government and the military to the public's eye would have been to find like-minded people, form a group, start some grassroots activism and some protests to get exposure, and work towards getting his issues on a ballot. But, no, that would be too slow and inconvienient, so he decided to go the easy route of instant gratification by smashing some satellites.

      That is awfully naive. A presidential election costs each candidate $1 billion, and they raise the money mostly from billionaire contributors and corporate interests. Politicians don't listen to grassroots activists, they listen to $100,000 contributors.

      A lot of people did just what you described to try to stop the Iraq war. It didn't work. So we killed 650,000 innocent people and handed over Iraq to ISIS. Good work, Bushie! (BTW, there were no WMDs.)

      A lot of people did just what you described, after Obama was elected, to push for a single payer health care system, and when that didn't work, for a public option, but they couldn't match the big lobbying groups, like the drug industry, the hospitals, and the insurance companies. So now you have to pay $8,500 a year for health care.

      Even Martin Luther King couldn't get anywhere without some pretty powerful supporters who could raise a lot of money and pull some political strings. (And the FBI was tapping his phones.) I'm not sure MLK could have done it today. He might have wound up with a 20-year sentence for terrorism.

      The U.S. is getting economically more unequal, the plutocrats are running the country, the Republicans have figured out a way to fool most of the people most of the time (TV), and I don't see a way out. If some radical wants to take direct action, doing something crazy that seems pointless to me, I can't tell him that I have a better way. If we're going to talk about futile destruction, destroying a $50 million satellite makes a lot more sense than signing up to fight in Iraq.

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateno...
      Bernie’s Reasons Why Not
      The progressive champion weighs running for president. “The situation is fairly dismal.”
      Kate Nocera and Ben Smith
      BuzzFeed
      March 4, 2015
      (Bernie Sanders may not run against Hillary Clinton for 2 reasons: (1) It has to be done well, or people will say that the ideas themselves don't have support. (2) It may be impossible to raise enough money to compete with Hillary Clinton, whose network plans to raise $500 million.)
      “The depressing part about that is that even if you did something phenomenally well — say you have 3 million people giving a $100 contribution each, which would be an enormous achievement — you’d be raising one-third of what the Koch brothers say they are spending.”
      “The question then occurs whether or not at this point in history you can beat the money folks,” he muses. “It may be that they have too much power and too much money and a real progressive may not be able to take them on.”

    2. Re:Well done, smart guy by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No actually Obama handed Iraq to ISIS. I can agree Bush went in there with some very naive thinking and it was probably a bad idea. After the fall of Sadam and some initial missteps by Rumsfeld and Bremer the Bush administration learned from their mistakes.

      The Iraq situation was in point of fact one of nearly continuous improvement from that point forward until Obummer took office. Obama having campaigned on getting out of Iraq elected to ignore all of the advice the out going Bush people tried to pass along. He essentially went back to the failed Rumsfeld policy of trying to believe hard enough the Iraqies were ready to self govern.

      Predictably without constant council and American support Nouri al-Maliki turned to his Shiite friends, who would not agree with you about being religiously similar to their Sunni counter parts (who ISIS and Al-queda are mostly made up of). The Iraqi army turned and ran not because they did not want fight ISIS but because they were incapable of doing so and knew it. Thanks to Obama not keeping some control of the reigns in Iraq Maliki and his Shiite supporters had replaced the well trained professional folks in the Army with Shitte flunkies. Which by the way still make up the Iraqi Army/Government today!

      Remember Sadar City? Yup its that Sadar that is contributing a huge part of the force we are now backing against ISIS. The idea we are assisting some legitimate democratic government in Iraq is a pure farce, Obama admin propaganda and nothing more. Its just a slightly different group of Terrorists that are we hope in the short term slightly less hostile to us. Iraq will always be Bush's fault, he got us into that mess. Still Obama has done quite literally nothing right since he has been in control. Obama's failure to accept and of the painful learned lessons by the Bush administration is what so much of Iraq is in the hands of ISIS today.

      Meanwhile there is Libya. You'd think after opposing the Iraq war while in the Senate because its a bad idea to just topple governments with no plan and create a power vacuum Obama would have enough sense to not under take a "kinetic military action" to topple Qadffi (who had been recently cooperative with our war on terror efforts) but no he is just so much smarter than Bush, his foreign invasion would just naturally be successful right? Nope Libyians today are not better off, and ISIS is using Libyan territory too. Similarly helping the Syrian rebels has done nothing but prevent Assad from crushing them as he likely would have if we'd stayed out of it; ISIS is leveraging that mess as their central home.

      We have Obama's policy failures to blame fore ISIS being more than a tiny disowned branch of Al-queda operating in the fringes of Iraq. Iraq might be Bush's fault but the blame for ISIS false squarely on Obama and Hillary.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Well done, smart guy by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bush invaded for no good reason, created a power vacuum, disbanded the army, and let sectarian violence flourish. Obama couldn't fix that any more than repairing a broken dam shortly after it's fully breached. Once the tribes had taken over, ISIS had little centralised opposition. The only areas of resistance were the Kurdish areas, and that was only because Bush left them alone after the invasion. Hell, ISIS were born from the Iraqi insurgency, which was only as successful as it was because of the poor decisions made after the invasion.

  3. Why call them activists? by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why call these nuts activists? They are just destroying public property. We call that vandalism.

    Seems like you can do whatever the hell you want, just call yourself an activist to excuse your behaviour. Maybe I should go tear down the neighbours hideous lawn ornaments in order to save the world from bad art so I can be an activist.

    It doesn't matter what you want to draw attention to, destroying the property of someone else should just be called for what it is: destruction of property.

  4. The real issue is not the technology. by trippin_efnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The issue is not the technologies being used. The real issue is the governments that are refusing to tell us how they are using the technologies. We can not make informed decisions on what is being done in the name of the citizenry because we have no idea what they are doing.

    If you want to break something, break the system of secrecy the goverments are building around you. How do we do that? I have no idea.

    The common citizen doesn't have the resources -- time or money -- to accomplish real political change right now.

    I would love to see the citizens have a positive debate on ways to fix things. But, as of right now, the people who seem to care the most about our current political problems are mired in some kind of bizarre left vs right blame game. As if both sides weren't actively trying to screw us. Every debate descends into who's at fault and the inevitable leap frog back through time picking examples why it was the 'other' side who started it all.

  5. There is no such thing... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "I had to slow the deployment of this system (which) makes conventional warfare much more lethal and nuclear war winnable in the eyes of some,"

    There is no such thing as a winnable war, nuclear or otherwise, and anybody who thinks there is such a thing has either never experienced war or that person is dumber than a palette of bricks.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  6. Re:Comment subjects need more letters, i can't put by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To me GPS has been a huge help and i'm not military. The fact that it started as a military project, and military continues to use it, and even if it is under military control, does not mean it's military. Maps are used by military all the time and even if not exactly started as military project, very much maps and map making has been a priority for any military for as long as people have existed.

    Once the Galileo project is up and running, well guess what, that's not a military project, since EU does not have a military. Only the individual countries have militaries, and they will most certainly use Galileo, but it's not a military project still. Mostly companies, especially companies moving a lot of stuff, will use it. The military will never use it as much.

    To me the idea that GPS systems are mostly military and need to be destroyed is a fucking loonatic idea. And the fact that the guy still thinks he did right, by stupidly breaking couple of satelites, is a moron. Not only is the idea stupid, breaking the satelites did nothing to stop it.

  7. Ever read the Unibomber Manifesto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Unibomber said a lot of the same sort of things. His case was kind of strange, but he was right about a small technorati elite controlling a lot of power.

    I think some people get carried away and lose sight of the big picture. The world has always been under control by elites who had their secret plots, all the way back to priests being the only ones who talked to gods. What else is a King's court but a place to gather other elites? The military isn't important, it's who directs it that counts. Really, what's under attack is the well armed Militia, or specifically, the local police force with a Local Sheriff that's elected by the citizens. The police are being militarized and increasingly federally controlled to quash dissent (in NY they have an anti-extremist squad roaming about with long rifles and machine guns looking to put down any protests). DHS is a federal police agency -- We don't need it. Protip: Anti-war protesters, civil-rights protesters, and women's rights protesters have all been considered "anti-American extremists" in the past; Never forget COINTELPRO.

    The local police is the last line of defense from a hostile dictatorship takeover, asside from picking up pitchforks... Eisenhower saw the writing on the wall, and warned us of everything that has come to pass.

    Personally, I can accept the GREAT risk of driving my car. If I'm not afraid to drive to work, then I'm not going to be afraid of Terrorists. I don't think we need all this "anti-terrorist" bullshit, let them come and get their asses kicked; We're such a great nation that terrorists can't even scratch us. 9/11 was 1/200th of the car accidents that we have every year.

    Removing the human element from military and law enforcement (red-light cameras, drones, etc) is far more threatening than GPS. Putting more power in the hands of the few means you not only lose less lives due to drones, but it also takes far less people to suppress another group. It means you have to convince less soldiers to go against the constitution and attack their own. The NSA's databases were hacked by a damn contractor, so we pretty much know that China and Russia has spies with access to far more of their systems -- So the National Security Agency has become a big threat to national security itself.

    There will always be powerful elites, it's when their power is unchecked that we have problems. Right now the citizens can still keep the governments in check, but as we reduce the number of people required to operate an enforcement detatchment, perhaps through automated systems like drones and vehicles, phones, and PCs that respond to remote kill switches, or even self driving cars (doors lock, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200), the power ballance may shift too far out of the reach of citizenry. Even just having a giant federal agency like the DHS install itself in every facet of life from travel to sports arena security is a reduction of local citizen control.

    The 2nd amendment was good enough when the might of our forces came from people with firearms. We're actually long past due for a new amendment: The Right to Bear Technology (including encryption). I really think If we're garaunteed such constitutional rights the Information Age may not destroy the USA. Without said right, as more of our lives are intertwined with computing machines the more erosion of our freedoms will continue. You already can't buy a car without a tracking device "black box" installed... Phones must have remote kill switches... The fork in the road ahead is impossible not to see.

    Got Root?

  8. Re:So which way do you propose? by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's a lousy analogy. A better analogy in this case would be that someone offended by apartheid took an axe to the bus, and after being arrested, ranted about the white people's plot to breed black people into Morlocks. Does that help clarify why Lumsdaine is such a counter-productive "activist"? His attempt was doomed to fail -- it would not stop either the military-industrial complex, or even the particular program he went after, but would put off practically everyone who disagreed with him and some of those who did agree with him.