Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Says Improper Image Morphing is War Crime
mwdib writes "Here's a story in Federal Computing Week in which the Pentagon decides that certain forms of computer morphing could be war crimes." It was hard not to file this under "humor," but Federal Computer Week is a serious publication that almost always gets its stories straight. So loonie as this may seem, it's not a joke.
Murder is, by definiton, unjustified and unauthorized killing. War is, in most cases, again by definition, authorized. Semantics aside, your point stands valid.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
War crime if they impersenate the President...sin if the impersinate the Commandant.
oorah!
-- "One world, one Web, one program." --Microsoft advertisement "Ein Folk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer." --me
I guess Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park) must be running like mad right now. Surely depicting Sadam Hussein as an overly active homosexual playing around with a fake penis is a war crime under this act?
(Note: I did read the article, I'm just joking here)
- Shaheen
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
Don't forget, even that most 'pacifistic' of games, Chess, is a simulation of Bronze age strategic combat.
What is the difference between the falsehoods "Our troups will be a coordinants X" and "Your leader has raised the white flag?" I don't belive the rules of engagement say anything about being honest with the enemy.
I have battle damage assesment photographs, on film and digitaly rendered, from the gulf war. If we had not bombed the piss out of the road to Basra, but instead mocked up some images showing the total distruction of the highway, leaked them to the enemy, and it served to divert Iraqi troops elsewhere, would I be a war criminal?
-137
strange, as I have a thingie shaped like a turnip.
Shouldn't it be CGI? morhping just reshapes one image into another. What they mean is generating a realistic image, or video, impersonating a real person doing or saying something they wouldn't. Think Josef Virek generating Tally Isham in count zero overdrive (?).
Morphing is more snoop doggy dog.
Someone should also post a link to voice fonts (or at least that's what they were called at the time) that IBM were playing with. I ran accross the term in an article in wired couple of years ago (back when it was still readable) talking about a guy who was trying to work his way up the VC hill. He was telling wired about a presentation he made where one guy was constantly heckling him -- in Jimmy Stewart's voice. The heckler had distilled down the particulars of that voice to a voice font, and was able to apply it to whatever input he wanted. The interviewee noted that IBM bought the rights. This is of course useful, as you want your leader to speak to the troops too.
Women and children first... (why?)
it's actually pretty simple. take a population of say, 50. half of the 50 are men, and half are women.
kill 20 of the men, leaving you with a population of 5 men and 25 women. the war is over, and it's time to repopulate. not a problem. but if it's the other way around, and you're left with 5 women and 25 men, you're s.o.l.
by the very nature of human reproduction, women become far more valuable to the population as a whole after a massive conflict that ends up depopulating an area. likewise, children have a longer breedling life in front of them than older humans.
we're not as removed from the chimps as we'd like to think we are...
Of course the reason that you agree not to mark all of your soldiers as medics is that you hope that your medics get special consideration. In otherwords that the other side won't deliberatly shoot a medic since they are unarmed and suppost to be protected. If every soldier started dressing up as a medic then the enemy would have no choise but to shoot every medic they see, which would prevent your medics form dealing with your wounded men, so it would be definatly counter productive to break that rule of war. Most of the rules of war are like that, they are simply the codified best interests of both sides.
I concur. If it were possible to fabricate a cease-fire and have both parties held to it, then that seems to be the way to go.
;-)
OTOH, how plausible is that?
War is bad, war is evil, yadda, yadda. As long as there are humans on this rock and as long as they are self-aware, there will be war.
I've always thought that there should be an uninhabited area where wars should be fought. No civilians, no property to rebuild, no scorched-earth policies. Kinda like an arena. Both sides square off. Whoever is left standing wins. Quick, less bloody, and televised as an event along with the Super Bowl (ok, now I'm getting twisted
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
The US has good technology for targeted, time-limited and otherwise very smart mines (able to distinguish between a tank and a nonmilitary vehicle, able to make themselves inert after a given period of time, able to shut themselves down by remote (encrypted, I'm certain) control, etc etc. These aren't those evil devices that do so much damage to civilian populations years after the fact.
So why should they be banned?
For more about modern propaganda techniques, check out Media Virus by Douglas Rushkoff, and the whole Marcshall McLuhan canon. "The medium is the message", and the medium of storytelling is the set of assumptions that the story takes place within. The audience rationally considers the content of the story, but to do so they have to load the background assumptions and images into their imagination. This background does not get the same kind of rational consideration, as does the action in the foreground. After the show is over, some residue of the background, the costumes, props, and scenery, remains in the viewer's fund of mental imagery. The subconcious mind then files these images and assumptions, and uses them later in constructing "independent" thoughts and decisions.
This may seem pretty far out, but I can assure you of this, it is the way modern propagandists are trained to think, and forms the basis of a large amount of editorial policy in military, government, and corporate media outlets.
What war?
Total Bullshit. Ignoring Nuclear weapons --- A violation of the charter that non-combatants and combatants be partitioned when attacking into those we do not kill and those we do --- the US is still a horrible violator of International Laws with regard to war. The grotesque parady of fighting in the "Gulf War," outlined in Ramsey Clark's excellent expose "The Fire This Time," for example, illustrates how the machinery of death was lay forth to destroy without regard to law not only nearly defenseless soldiers, but innocent civilians and indeed, to bomb Iraq into the Stoneage. One has to wonder how anyone can view the outbreak of previously onseen diaseases --- cholera, dysentery,etc --- in countries attacked by the US in recent years and view this as civilized. I don't mean to suggest you have your head up your ass, but come on! It just doesn't do to get your history from Tom Clancy novels and talk radio. For the love of God, George Bush violated International Law for the mining of the Nicaraguan harbors not 8 years ago! Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia still see thousands of people die or maimed each year because of the mass of unexploded artillery and bombs dropped by the US.
Not for me, thank you.
Since this is another article about the rules of war, it's still a teeny bit on-topic.
What's with the big peacenik/dove stance here at Slashdot, yet the vast appreciation for Doom, Quake, HalfLife, etc? Strikes me as a bit hypocritical. War is a nasty, ugly, messy, terrible thing, but sometimes it's needed. WWII, for instance. Or any number of "we're not your colony anymore" wars in Africa, South America, etc. I don't mean that every war is good, or that there is really such a thing as a good war, just that sometimes, when someone gets a little oppresive and power hungry, the only resort is violence. Sure, pacifistic resistance can work, but not in every case. Ditto diplomacy. I think that's something that we as a species need to come to grips with, esp. if we play at war (again, Quake, Doom, Starcraft, etc). Sure, we can have the idealized solution - put the world leaders in a [insert idealized solution here, like footrace/boxing ring/Q3DM] and whoever wins, wins. But what if they cheat? That's all.
itachi, who thinks that a little gibbing is a lot better than a real war any day.
flame on
It is also creative warfare to salt the enemy's land, sterilise the women and shoot the men. Hardly legal, though.
Which party to this whole turnip affair is named Baldrick?
Billy has given up, huh ? About time!
Soon they will realise that killing in war should be a crime since it also inhumane & immoral.
Hence, they will decide confilcts with server benchmarks. ;-)
In a utopian world: M$ products are classed as biological weapons and their use deemed a war crime.
Control of mass media has been the key to political and military power since World War Two. The Internet threatens to level the playing field, giving the "have-nots" the ability to put their stories in front of millions of viewers who are not supposed to see anything but press releases composed by prosecutors' offices, military "information officers," and a handful of giant media corporations. Small wonder, then, that regulations and infrastructure specifications needed to implement Internet censorship are being promoted under the banner of "anti-terrorism, anti kiddie-porn, anti-drug." Now they are dragging the words "war crime" into the mix.
Fortunately, the people who actually run the Internet know what censorship is, and what to do about it.
Jane Fonda.
She denounced the US in the Vietnam War.
She went to Hanoi (Vietnam) to do it.
~ I haven't lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere.
History is written by the victors. War crimes are defined and enforced by the victors too.
There's certainly nothing new about disinformation, deceptive transmissions and decoy messages. All sides did this sort of thing during WWII. The difference is the media.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
this is old news
An oxymoron or does it just sound stupid?
Fran
:):):)
1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
So would I be tried if I "obtained" a picture of Bill Gates signing an aggrement with the DOJ? HAHA... I think it would be interesting to be stormed y the MS SS and interrogated for my "terrorist act".
you find that this is really old news.
We all know how easy it is to edit a graphic.
We all know that graphic edited to misinform and presented as "truth" or "news" could cause great harm.
It is the "great harm" that could be the war crime, not the graphic.
Besides, even DATA couldn't quite "get the hair right". Of course this is possible, any movie since T2 will show that it's possible, it's just not at all easy to get away with, highly disputable. Although if you only have to fool a few people for a short time (The men with their fingers on the buttons), it could get ugly.
When they outlaw video toasters, then only outlaws will have video toasters.
I like music
in other words: if you are lying to the enemy you are a war criminal and all around bad guy! but if you just kill them instead of lying to them its ok?
So does this mean that if I make a small animation of Clinton's head turning into the devil's likeness, can I be arrested on the grounds of treason? This can't be...
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder
FC Closer
What if they impersonate Cmdr Taco?
From what I understood of the article, it was merely saying that the use of falsely generated images during war in order to confuse the enemy is against international law.
There is no mention of normal computer morphing technology being illegal; merely the use of it against enemies during times of war by the army itself is against international law.
Silly boy, it is a context-free rant generator. It's hard to be specific without a context. It cracks me up to see people respond point-by-point to an automated complainer program.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Hello--this is Bill Gates. I would like to address all of my loyal windows troops tonight and let you know that the war against unix is over.
I don't think we as individuals nned to worry about it too much.
But the implications for works of fiction are interesting. One can have martial law imposed in a municipal area due to riots or other "acts of belligerence". Those "enemies" are engaging in image modification and get caught. Can you say "trial by courtmartial", even though they are civilians?
--
Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
If that is so, then Kai's Goo-program would be a weapon. And then you would need a license to use it. And it wouldn't be allowed to use in a cafe on a laptop. Now that'd be werd.
I don't think this is loony at all. After reading the article (remember that? The chips and Dips crew did :). It is already a War Crime to impersonate a leader calling off the troops or falsifying information about treaties and ceasefires -- as the article hints, it violates perfidity -- why should an electronic version be any different?
There have ben no cases I know of of actors being arrested for war crimes by impersonating presidents, just as I predict there will be no cases of digital artists arrested for war crimes by morphing world leaders. It's not the technology, it's not even the application, it's the intent. I think you're playing with fire when you broadcast ANY image (technologically created or otherwise) of a world leader calling off troops during a time of war...
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
If you're in charge, your defeat is unlikely to kill you. If you follow the rules of war, not only will the victors be much more reluctant to immediately put you up against a wall, but future foes will be less likely to slaughter your homeland's troops like cattle.
Another example is wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, especially children.
I know this is gonna be a controversial question-- but why is it worse to slaughter a civilian vs. a soldier? An adult vs. a child?
I mean, assuming all human lives are equally valuable, which admittedly not everyone will agree to, I don't get why people think it's more tragic for a baby to die than say, a 70 year old man or a soldier.
Women and children first... (why?)
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Personally, I think the idea of laws of war are silly.
For everything that is forbidden, there are dozens that are far more terrible.
Expanding bullets are forbidden, but shrapnel is okay. It would be horribly wrong for the American soldiers to use bullets that explode (or even mushroom out to double width) when they hit an enemy body, but they are now planning to replace their M-16s with weapons that use sophisticated laser rangefinders and electronic fuses to fire bullets which explode as close as possible to an enemy soldier (in addition to firing conventional steel-jacketed bullets similar to those used in the M-16). However, I'm sure the targets will appreciate the distinction.
The Japanese were not playing fair because of the way they treated prisoners, but it was okay for the US to nuke cities, slaughtering the civilian populations and effectively torturing thousands to death.
The Vietnamese were wrong to treat POW's as they would treat anyone else who ran around "their country" shooting people, but it was fine for the Americans to try to counter guerilla tactics by mass defoliation of the land (with dangerous long-lasting poisons) and air-dumping countless mines that are still killing civilians.
I'm not trying to defend the USA's enemies, just point out the irrationality of the laws of war.
hahaha, this is the best joke I've heard in a while, even though it's not a joke. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
"Every war is based upon deception."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
If I thought that the U.S. were involved in a
war I didn't approve of, I'd be proud to use
morphing or any other means neccesary to end,
cripple, or otherwise harm U.S. military interests
in the affair.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
This is, IMHO, a fscking crock. Just last year, the United States broke several International Treaties (and ignored a vote by the Congress) to engage in an illegal war on Yugoslavia. Sidestepping the fact that Milosovic is an *elected* leader, we violated international borders. We used *illegal* cluster bombs. We poisoned the earth with "depleted" uranium bombs. We inserted Special Op forces. Journalists were manipulated with false "atrocity" stories. Anyone who believes this pious "full compliance" crap is either naive or in the pay of the American warlords.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
If that's the case, why don't they make a commitment to only using these "safer" mines, as a weaker form of the land mine ban?
... it doesn't mean that we won't either ... any treaty making exceptions for "smart" mines would have to spell out those terms.
... i never said that they ought to be banned, personally i'd prefer that all weapons be banned, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
If the US military is only using "smart" mines, they could easily make that idea clear, even in a 15 second sound bite. My guess is that our armed forces would like to have the option of using "dumb" mines, since they must be cheaper and certianly make a psycological impression on the civilians.
There is a big jump between the ability to make a "smart" mine and a committment to use it exclusively. Moreover, just because we can avoid civilian targets and deactivate mines after the war, dosen't mean that we will
Anyway, if you know of any committment to only using "smart" mines by the US armed forces, or know of any proposals for a land mine treaty revision that makes allowances for smart mines, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
btw
the whole concept of geneva conventions is kinda lost on me, in the revolutionary war, we're taught that the patriots were clever to adopt geurilla warfare against the antiquated, redcoats. our current M.O. is to bomb the living sh*t out of everything in our path (civillians and all) and then we complain that terrorism is unfair. like some little country is gonna out-bomb us or invade. i don't like terrorism, land mines or any other kind of warfare any more or less than any others, i pretty much dislike them all equally (well except for nukes and biological weapons, which can affect the entire population)
- bridgette
It's war. That's sorta THE POINT.
Tanks, guns, and uniforms are real. Killing people and destroying buildings is real. "War" is a social fiction.
"Crime" is a similarly fictitious construct, but is even more nebulous, much like "sin".
Both "war" and "crime" are convenient devices to justify behaviour that would be deemed unacceptable under normal circumstances. This is not to say that the use of force can never be justified, but words like "war" and "crime" can be used to create the belief that extreme force is justified in situations where more rational examination of the evidence would suggest otherwise.
Sorry for rambling, but I hate seeing people hypnotized by phrases like "war crime" or "software piracy", and so on.
Wow, cool. Where can i get one?
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Quake is a current example. My point is that, as humans, we lay at war. A lot. Chess. I agree about most sports. I'm just saying we should recognize it for what it is.
The U.S. is right to watch out for civilians during wartime. WWI was about 10 soldiers killed for every 1 civilian. WWII was about at parity: 1 soldier for 1 civilian. Wars after that have been 10 civilians or more killed for every 1 soldier. War is a messy business, and it's getting messier.
I have to say though that most of what you object to is NOT illegal, so calling them war crimes makes you look silly. The civilain people killed by mines in Vietnam were not specifically targeted, so the mines were not illegal. War is messy, what can you do about that except not fight wars?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
It's all pretty simple, IMHO, if the military could do it, they would do it, no question about it.
Compare to WW2 where both sides used false radio broadcasts to eachothers populations. Lord Haw-Haw (part of the German propaganda machine) is widely known, his British, Russian and American counterparts aren't, and they broadcast the same type of information. The point being that German propagandists were treated as War Criminals while nothing happened to their Allied conterparts. Just see any recounting of the Inteligence War of WW2 if you're interested.
The same thing goes for the Gulf War. Saddam was denounced as a war criminal for getting his prisoners to talk about how good it was in Iraq and how bad the USA were for declaring war on Iraq. Bush, on the other hand, was not even condemned for bearing false witness as to the Iraqi treatment of the Kuwaitian (sic?) population. Even the most famous case, where Bush and an employee of the Kuwait Embassy fabricated a tale of how Iraqi troops had entered Kuwaiti hostpitals and killed infants in the incubators so they could bring the incubators back to Iraq, brough brough only cursory examination from the western press. But Bush was on the winning side.
It can be argued that this is not the same thing as sending pictures/sound of enemy commanders to their troops, but the way I figure it is only that the target of the deception is the civilian population (often of both countries). (And sending false orders to the enemy is, and will always be, an integral part of war, it's only a question of if it succeeds, and is kept secret, or not.) What I think happened is that members of the DoD got scared at the thought of what could happend if some foregin power got access to their information distribution and acted accordingly. IMHO it is another example of officials saying 'oh, how bad' and secretly planing on doing it to the other fellow anyhow.
But that's what war is all about.
Phase 1: Where do you want to go today? Phase 2: This is where you want to go today. Phase 3: You're not going any
Now, we all know that adds can often be false or misleading, and (as the article states), they often use morphing. Does that make those adds war crimes?
Rhapsody in Numbers
Can anybody come up with a way of using morphing to prevent a war? And if they did would that be a war crime? And if using morphing to end a war saved lives, would that be a crime too? What is a crime, in fact? - I always thought it was killing that was wrong; I seem to have got my values mixed up somewhere.
Adam:What kept you?
God:Rome wasn't built in a day
I've read all the comments, and at least a few people have hit it right on the button. They are doing this because of the possibilities if someone were to interupt a tv signal with say, an address from the president of the US. If this person were to insert a high quality thing of say, the president being assasinated, then immediately put up some sort of Technical Difficulties screen, imagine the chaos that could follow it. Especially if this were in some situation like.. the Cuban Missile Crisis.
That all said, SNL could be in some trouble if they improve the quality of their opening sketches. I know at least one went something like this:
Bill Clinton on screen..
(talks a bit, leading to) so, these United States of America are now at war. (looks solemn, cracks up) Hah! I really had you going for a minute there, din't I? I bet my approval ratings just shot through the roof! (puts hand on chin, thinks about that for a second.. Has special address from the president interrupted by special address from Bill Gates who says.. well, nothing.).
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
The "Laws of War" what a crock.
I mean, sure, it sounds good when there are rules about POW's and stuff.. but gimme a break. WAR is WAR. War means you are going to KILL people until you get your way.
I used to wonder about why there should be rules of engagement until I was issued this book during Officer Training. War is horrible, but as we have demonstrated time and again, we will continue to wage it. In order to extricate our sorry asses from it, we need to be able to trust each just enough to render an end to such a conflict.
From US ARMY (field manual) FM-27-10.Ruses of war are legitimate so long as they do not involve treachery or perfidy on the part of the belligerent resorting to them. They are, however, forbidden if they contravene any generally accepted rule.
The line of demarcation between legitimate ruses and forbidden acts of perfidy is sometimes indistinct, but the following examples indicate the correct principles. It would be an improper practice to secure an advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying or misleading conduct which involves a breach of faith, or when there is a moral obligation to speak the truth. For example, it is improper to feign surrender so as to secure an advantage over the opposing belligerent thereby. So similarly, to broadcast to the enemy that an armistice had been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous. On the other hand, it is a perfectly proper ruse to summon a force to surrender on the ground that it is surrounded and thereby induce such surrender with a small force.
Treacherous or perfidious conduct in war is forbidden because it destroys the basis for a restoration of peace short of the complete annihilation of one belligerent by the other.
Checkout: http://www.adtdl.army.m il/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htmhttp://www.adtdl.army.m il/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch2.htm
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
OTOH, I would probably enlist, and would definitely serve if drafted, should we become involved in a serious war, not because I particularly want to, but because it is my duty. If I were an Iraqi, I would probably do the same (Hussein is a bastard, but he is really no worse than 3 thousand years of caliphs, sheiks, emperors and kings have been). I don't know what I would have done as a German; to fight for Germany would have meant to support the evil Nazis, while to betray the Nazis would be to betray my country and my people. I would probably have attempted to leave the country long before war.
And I would never, ever, ever perform an action which would lead to the deaths of soldiers of the United States. Treason is rightfully a capital offense. A man who betrays his country is a serpent which should be destroyed. If one will betray his country, why not his friends or his family? He is untrustworthy; his very existence is an insult to honest men. I count a fruit fly's life of greater value than his.
Iraqi's might be stupid but then again perhaps we should look back a couple of thousand years and see which places where the Birth Places of Civilisation.
The real moron here - IS YOU the INDOCTRINATED little shit heel of the NEW WORLD ORDER.
Of course you can feel safe in the knowledge that you protect the innocent from awful gas attacks.
Can anybody say WACO!
"The way she used to say Rimmer as if it rhymed with scum" Red Dwarf
Yeah I did server in the Gulf War and there were thousands of bodies on that highway you moron. Where the hell were the Iraqi soldiers supposed to run to in a fucking desert? It's not like Vietnam where there was jungle to cover their tracks, they were exposed as hell and we just machine gunned them down while they ran.
So the germans who betrayed their country were
serpents who should've been destroyed?
Sure, I'd betray my country, friends, or
family if I felt what they were doing is wrong.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Would you have the same attitude? Would you defend Hitler and his ilk because "fellow countrymen out there [are] dying somewhere"? You and the rest of the "patriots" replying like this are scum. As the saying goes, 'patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels'.
All they are saying is that *IF* computers are used to impersonate a video broadcast (or similar thing) to enemy troops/countrymen, during a time of war, in order to mislead them (ie: We have surrendered.), that this action could be considered a war crime.
And, they mention that 'morphing' would be the likely way of doing this. Ie:
Actor gives speech, computer morphs them intoa likeness of some other countries leader/that leaders voice.
They aren't claiming that morphing software is illegal. They aren't claiming it's a weapon. They aren't really saying much of anything. They aren't even saying that this is US law.. they are only saying that under current international war-crime laws, that impersonating the enemy's leader *could* be considered a war crime, and they mention copmuters can do this these days.
Wow. That's amazing news. Really profound.
Hear hear! You would think that these people would be glad that our military care about decency in war.
Good point: if we act brutally our enemies are more likely to do so. We would respond in kind and warfare would devolve into an ever more-dehumanising experience, worse than it already is. International law seeks to prevent this. I could not have put it better myself.By the way, it's good to see a Marine on Slashdot. I've a brother at the Academy who hopes to be a Marine pilot and an uncle who died on Iwo Jima. My father was a Naval officer and his father was a sailor in WWII. It's good to see someone else pointing out that the military are not evil.
Oorah!
At last - an excuse to execute Michael Jackson!
The laws of war has always had a PS:
None of the above really matters - if you win.
You may decide to take the chance and use "illegal" weapons. The laws just make the stakes higher.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I think that Clauswitz is not rolling over in his grave quite yet. Considering the huge potential military value in electronic deception, and that the US has by far the most ability to perform such acts: I suggest that the Pentagon is claiming that this would be a 'war crime' so that any prospective opponents will not prepare against such attack. Cheers, all! Bobzibub.
But then again, it's only a rumor I heard. Could be part of the desinformation as well.
i read the article, i think that it's a good thing. limiting the weapons of war, in any capacity, i believe to be a good thing.
as far as using cgi to spread propaganda is of concern to not just the military but to many in the private sector as well. for example, there is some concern in the jewish community that with the advent of better and better computer imaging, history itself is not safe, that there is a possibility of someone just "finding" a lost film reel that proves that the nazis did not, in fact, have death camps and that millions were not killed. in retrospect, maybe the laws of war should apply to such deception as well. jokes on SNL are one thing -- we all know that it's a joke. what if someone pulled the wool over our eyes with malicious intent?
Playing at war and/or violence is a thing of all ages, not just the computer-age. Do you seriously think that quake et al. were the first games based on war, siege or violence? think again. Most ball-sports are based either on a siege (baseball, cricket) where one party must defend the 'castle' and the other party tries to invade. Or it's based on 2 parties in a war (football, rugby, am. football, and even tennis). It's nothing new, and probably not going to change any time soon. but is it really bad? players don't usually try to kill eachother in the game, just like most people who play quake don't try to kill their neighbours. playing war and actually engaging in it are 2 very different things.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I'd revise this to say, read the story it was based on, as the movie is an atrocity of bad acting, bad writing, and otherwise generally a travesty. ;)
In general, though, this theme is well covered by PKD - also read "The Three Stigmatas of Palmer Eldrich" for further discussion.
when I grow up a want a large turnip in the country..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
He was if you use your 'logic' since he betrayed his own country (Britian) and killed his own countrymen (soldiers in the British army). Man you are wacked.
I think you are mixing up a few things
First depleted uranium shells are not bombs, uranium is used because it is very dense and can puncture other metal, it never explodes.
Second,everything about maniputation of the press in Yugoslavia is just hearsay. I know a journalist that was in Yugoslavia, and he personally saw many of the horrors, mostly commited on the Albainians, but not exclusivly. The vast majority of false "atrocity" were by Milosovics government, who were sending bus's over target bridges continuosly, they know the best way to fight the US is through the American media.
I do not know anything about the *illegal* cluster bombs, however i would like to know who declared them *illegal*, and if the United States signed the treaty
It seems that so many people here are so concentrated on american bashing that they can ignore the actual facts and only look at conspericy theories. I guess it is just a case of the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but if the United States really used its special forces extensivly for illegal operations, I have a feeling Sadam Hussian would have been assainated a long time ago.
If you take time and look at these events from a unbiased viewpoint you would look back at yourself and see someone who is very "naive", however so would someone who believes everything the government or CNN say. If you do, you will see that most of the people who say other are sheep, really are themselves sheep. I really wish that would forget their biases and look at everything objectivly, but i can't see it happening soon.
Oh well, i don't even think any of this should bother me, i'm Canadian
I personally believe that mines should be banned, and a perfectly good treatly was passed by many of the worlds countries, unforutinatly, the US did not sign it.
At first this would seem like a stupid, irrational move on the part of the American. However, the Americans were perfectly willing to sign, grated one exemption until around 2005 for landmines planted around the demilliterized zone at the korean boarder.
These landmies protect the 20,000+ american soldiers still stationed in South Korea, after a cease fire ended UN involement there. North Korea is very unstable, with a much larger army then the Americans stationed their.
Unforutunatly, because several of the people involved in this treaty were in line for a Nobel prize, they decided not to grant any exemptions, and the US did not sign the treaty.
No but you can use this one.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Who's to say the media would put that 15-second sound bite on the air? A fair number of the controlling influences there would like to make certain political figures look bad (and, as another poster commented, the only exemption we requested was not for such smart mines -- as I think it should have been -- but a location- and time-limited exemption for Korea).
In response to your question, though -- AFAIK, all tactical use of mines in the last several years has been smart mines. Strategic use -- long-term defense of areas, with the locations of the mines being well-published and all that -- I don't know about; I've got some friends w/ more knowledge of military policy than my own, and I can ask if you're interested.
I meant location of the minefield, of course.
A turnip shaped like a thingy?
Too far fetched. Serving turnips to POWs, and calling it food is a crime.
-- Abigail
I have no education and little information on this subject, so my speculation will be limited here... but isn't this just refering to basically an advanced form of propaganda? Wouldn't the same people who would be vulnerable to this be vulnerable to leaflets dropped from the sky/et al? Or is it the fact that the video medium is so much more compelling, and unlikely to be doubted?
I was under the impression that such demoralizing/disinforming propaganda was common. Perhaps someone with more insight into current military propaganda techniques can give further analysis here...
Anyway, what they showed us was one cubicle where some people were working on sound-lip syncing technology.. They had one demo where you could see a 3D model of a person's tongue and mouth, used for research. I didn't get to see the actual video-manipulation version, if it was completed.
Now what's really scary is that just a few steps away from that cubicle was a room where they were working on sound-manipulation software. You know how with a sound-editor you can change the pitch or tempo of a voice sample (or any sound sample)? Well, they had software there they could change OVERTONES.. That's right.. they could take what one person said and alter it to make it sound like someone else!
Neither of these technologies were very mature when I saw them, but I'm sure they have better stuff by now.
So, whether or not it's legal.. You can be sure the government is certainly working on the technology for it.
Physically or digitally passing misinformation to the enemy is not a war crime. It's active counter-intelligence, or even `attack comm' (why relegating the blue guys to defense/logistics only?)
-- An Army Lieutenant
In fact, didn't congress squash legistation for participating in the lan mine ban this year? So not only are land mines not illegal, we won't vote to make them illegal.
But the AC might have been refering to other laws in the Nicaragua case, perhaps, and i'm just guessing here, it's not cool to mine international waters?
- bridgette
The States get once again their nerves on Jugoslavia. And this time they do ti! They start to systematically throwing down Jugoslav Internet connections. In one server a small link to a site located in Russia sends the whole mess into Russian territory. Immediately all Russian Internet goes in flames. Russian hackers start to counter attack US sites. US hackers reply. Europe gets in the middle. In one point tries to throw back the attacks and contempt a flurry of "collateral damage". In the end nerves break out. They start to attack US and Russia.
In the mean time Asian hackers decide that to be out of te mess is too boring. And they start to shoot everywhere and everyone. Some of these shoots get into Australia, South America and Africa. They also start replying.
In the mean time in the US, in a big computer center, a small engineer comes to the conclusion that he is not paid for such mess. "Enough is enough". He picks a shotgun and drops the whole stuff at a nearby box...
Score:3 Insightful?
I think we should machinegun the moderators instead.
Using a computer to impersonate a head of state to relay false messages could be a war crime. So what?
This is simply recognition of a potential use of computer image manipulation. They aren't saying in any way that "morphing" in general is a war crime.
You could probably commit a war crime with turnips, too.
Finally someone at the Pentagon saw Terminator 2 or that Michael Jackson video and realized the horrible implications in future wars...
This really is old news - I think the Mission Impossible team was doing stuff like this with plain old makeup and wigs back in the 1960's...
For a long time, you couldn't prove anything with a picture. Society got along just fine.
Then, somebody developed photography. For a short period, you actually could prove something with a picture. Society contiuned to plod along, and nothing in particular got that much better.
Now, with PhotoShop and The Gimp, you can once again prove nothing with a picture. I suspect that society will continue to get along just fine, after some adjustment.
Read the article, people. It clearly states that computer morphing can be a form of war crime, but only if it is used in a warlike manner! They are very specific to give an example of fooling a populus about decisions made by their "leader", who is actually a computer generated figure. This article doesn't say anything about computer morphing when used in a manner that does not interfere with national defense. Sticking your friend's head on a different body and stuff like that isn't going to result in the Navy Seals knocking down your door. Heck, espionage can be a war crime, but that doesn't mean that tapping your roommate's phone will result in a UN tribunal.
One more thing:
The long-distance and anonymous nature of computer network attacks may make detection and prosecution unlikely, but it is the firmly established policy of the United States that U.S. forces will fight in full compliance with the law of war," the study concluded.
Number one, since when did war have or need laws?
Number two, isn't all fair in love and war?
I'm actually pleasantly suprised that the pentagon is concerned enough about these issues to reasearch and address them.
...
If they really want to avoid violating international law, they are wise to make that perfectly clear.
of course, it could be a smokescreen
- bridgette
Lemme get this straight- the Maximum Leader has digital connections to his troops, yet they're going to believe any plaintext video that looks like him? Come on, what kind of idiotic bureaucracy wouldn't require digital signatures, especially on something that important?
...that someone out there is able to fool the enemy into thinking that a car of theirs turned into a tiger and ran down the road! DANGEROUS STUFF THIS TECHNOLOGY!! Run! Hide! Regulate!
Dan
Answer one: Since always -- the laws just keep changing depending on who wins.
Number two, isn't all fair in love and war?
Answer two: No.
Remember when a Kuwaiti woman ("the ambassador's daughter") testified before Congress that the Iraqis were breaking open incubators and killing Kuwaiti babies? The fiends! Who would kill pwecious pwemature baybeeees?!!! Well, the story was full of shit, and we used that horrid story as great PR for our "just war". If anything's a "disinformation-based war crime", that is. Remember, boys and girls, war crimes trump diplomatic immunity. Right? Well, except that the US is already the King of the Hypocritical Hill when it comes to war crimes -- "anything's ok if it doesn't apply to me and my friends".
Considering that they used both faked images (on TV, allegedly showing mass graves) and "cyberterrorism" against Serbia, it's hypocritical that the Pentagon first called these actions war crimes.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
This is exactly what happens to Peter Weller in this flick. An artificial image of a military commander gives bogus commands and reports.
See this if you are Philip Dick fan.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
The Pentagon has lost sight of the lessons of history. The Pentagon's witticisms can be rightly understood only as what some hidebound pests have been brave enough to call them: a failure. It is deeply unfortunate that the Pentagon makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression, since the malodorous tone used by the Pentagon in its litanies clearly shows what kind of organization it really is. The Pentagon frequently takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. I see two problems with the Pentagon's perorations on a very fundamental level. First, it is easy to see from the foregoing that there is nothing more tragic than to find a decent, honest person who's been misled by its self-serving manuscripts. And second, if it isn't repugnant, I don't know who is.
Look, as a concerned citizen, I will forge ahead in my brave quest to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. To deny this is to deny science, let alone the evidence of one's own powers of observation. The "facts" the Pentagon has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most unenlightened is the Pentagon's discussion of witless hackers. The world is suffering from the Pentagon's lack of faith in a transcendental truth. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.
I have, as at least one other poster, noticed that a large number of the posters on this forum appear to be confused about the intent of the Geneva Convention and other international "laws" of warfare. I have even seen one poster ask, to paraphrase, "Why try to civilize war?". That, of course, is not the intent of the Geneva convention. The laws of warfare are instead intended to place limits on the dehumanization which occurs on such a widespread scale in warfare. As an example, consider the use of FMJ (full metal jacket) ammunition in rifles. Yes, this ammunition is more likely to wound, then kill, as one poster did point out; but the real reason why this ammunition is required is that the wounds it causes are more likely to be treatable than, say, ammunition which fragments after entering the body, which was designed specifically to cause massive damage to flesh. Similarly, how many do not agree that it is wrong to torture or maim the captured enemy? Once taken as prisoners, those men lose their ability to defend themselves; attacks upon them have no honour. As a result, the Geneva convention places limits on the treatment and conditions of prisoners, and not respecting those limits is likely to cause your captured soliders to be treated in a like manner by your enemy. Lastly, how many can not agree that attacks on defenseless civilian targets are wrong? The laws of warfare, then, place limits on these attacks.
Historically, we have violated the laws of warfare, as has been pointed out in this forum; but, I would ask, how often have we (the US) violated those laws only in response to a similar violation of our enemies?
So, the laws of warfare seek not to civilize war, but instead to impose limits on the amount of damage that war can do to civilization, or as another poster put it, when the only course is morally wrong, to force opposing nations to limit the amount of wrong that they inflict upon each other.
"Let me control a planet's oxygen supply and I don't care who makes the laws" -Great Cthulu's Starry Wisdom Band
Was this just a badly executed joke? You rant on and on about how the pentagon is distorting history, but dont give any examples. You then say that they're using a wide variety of methods to mislead people through their documents, but again give no examples. I can imagine the pentagon using deceit, oppression, etc to mislead people, but lust and chicanery? This is the US government.. source of possibly the world's most boring documents..
"...contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. To deny this is to deny science..."
To deny what? That you're going to contribute, or that it's good that you're going to, or possibly even that it needs doing? And exactly what are you planning on contributing? You've made all sorts of undefined, vauge, unsupported statements about the pentagon but not stated your own views. Are you saying they need to find religion? If so, which one? Perhaps you just want to correct some historical errors? What do you believe to Be errors?
"One of the most unenlightened is the pentagon's discussion of witless hackers."
Are you saying that hackers Are witless, or that the pentagon called them witless? What exactly is it that the pentagon discussed? When was this? It certainly wasnt in This article.. this one was about opposing armies using image alteration to fool each other into believing there's a cease fire.
"The world is suffering from the Pentagon's lack of faith in a transcendental truth."
The world is, eh? So now the pentagon is some evil world-spanning operation that's making everybody suffer, rather than just the US? And precisely what IS a transcendental truth anyway? Or are you just trying to throw together big words to sound impressive?
If this was all a joke, i apologize for ranting at you. Otherwise, quit being a troll and learn the concept of supporting sentences.
Dreamweaver
"If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
Exactly.
I guess they are going to try the people who took that Iwo Jima picture of Marines raising the flag, which was done days later.
Also, the original figures, spouted by Tony Blair and NATO of civilian deaths in Kosovo have been shown to be exagerated by a few hundred percent, so no doubt they'll try those guys too....
The simple act of declaring this type of image manipulation illegal is warfare on a very subliminal level; it dissuades and confuses the enemy while a nation can marshal troops more effectively. The idea of codifying war in order make war civilized is foolish. War is a messy business, and once over, the winning nation must justify it's own criminal behaviour by villifying the losing one; thus the need to create reasons to punish the "neo-unjust" (losers). Funny how no one got prosecuted for annhilating all those poor civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Strange how the Chinese never got to prosecute the Japanese for the Rape of Nanking. The US handily forgot about any type of code regarding civvies during the nuking of Japan or the fire bombing of Dresden. Efficacy and economy wins out every time, and winning is the whole point of war, so vid-edit away until the other guy loses!
I think what they're on about is someone doing images of Clinton and Saddam Hussein signing a peace accord when in fact nothing of the sort was going in, and then broadcasting that on some channel that our troops could see it on. That'd be a reasonably clever and sneaky way to fight dirty and it is a rather logical end-result of applying digital technology to propiganda.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It's all well and good to say that digital misinformation is a warcrime and that military unit's can't engage in it. But what about all the anonymous civvies that might take it upon themselves to engage in cyberwar on their nation's behalf?
Remember when NATO had to put the smackdown on slobo milo? Hackers (yeah I know cracker is more PC but F-it) came out of the woodwork, on both sides, attacking various internet sites of the opposition.
Think, for a moment, about barriers to entry.
It's auful hard for a civilian to aquire, say a $50 million fighter and plant a bomb into an orphanage to commit a war crime. Even if you ignore the expense, there's all kinds of restrictions on the necessary hardware.
But digital morphing and rendering has become simplistically inexpensive over the years. Jurassic Park probably was rendered on several million $ worth of 1990-era SGI workstations, and remember how convinging the dinos were?
Nowdays, any yahoo with $5K worth of Macintosh and the associated FMV software can do the same job. Or for the more financially endowed $20K worth of SGI hardware and software (still within the budget of many americans) can render a more convincing job on FMV. For most still shots, a $1K Linux box running GIMP can do almost as well as Photoshop for altering photos.
And the internet, if you have any brains, allows for easy anonymous distribution.
So just what does the war crimes tribunal do when countless civies decide to "help out" in the IT arena of our next war?
john
Imagine all the people...
The way I see it, my "countrymen" are no more important than the "countrymen" in the other nation. If "my" govt is harming civilians in another country or I believe they are on the wrong side of the conflict, is it not morally right to try and fight for what you believe is right? The only reason those "boys on the ground" would be harmed is because they decided to go onto that battlefield. It is people like you, with your "us vs them" nationalism that keeps people fighting for their country whether they are morally correct or not. There is no way you can logically justify your position. You see, if the poster who said "I would do it", didn't do it, he'd be contibuting to the deaths to the boys he agrees with through his inaction. Also, it is interesting how you think he shouldn't jepardise the lives of those who happen to live in his general geographic region (nation), but it is somehow right for a nation to jeopardize their lives. We must base our decisions in life upon what we believe is right, and we must make those decisions for ourselves, the simple fact that we happened to have been born in a certain place, grew up with a certain religion, or have a certain color skin, shouldn't be what decides our questions for us. Maybe you'll think a little deeper about these issues before you post again. By your feeble and simplistic logic, the Iraqis shouldn't betray their thug-like leader, the Germans should never have betrayed "their" side, even if it was the morally wrong side of the conflict.
I was going to broadcast an image of Hitler saying, "I return! Join me at Otto's nightclub for the battle that will bring about the triumphant Fourth Reich," then machine-gun all the skinheads who came rushing in.
:)
Not in MY club you won't, ya commie bastard!
jk!
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
drop the chalupa!
Aaarrgh! One minute late! Now your article will be moderated unto the lofty heights while mine will be cast down to burn among the flames of the damned, branded with the terrible sin of redundancy.
I weep for my lost karma.
(those who wonder what this is all about will find my article "Nothing loony about it." if they set their threshold to -1; not that there's any reason to look for it, the point's been covered)
(BTW, I am TheDullBlade, but this post should go up with a 0 score and that's not an option)
The old saying, "All's fair in love and war," isn't quite true. The Geneva Convention makes certain types of war effectively illegal (at least insofar as nobody's really in a position to enforce it), and it's there for a good reason.
This refers to using digital morphing techniques in a clearly deceptive manner - say, to "announce" a cessation of hostilities, so $VILLAIN can launch a sneak attack on $GOODGUYS, catching them unprepared and making it an easy slaughter.
War, like software development, is an imprecise art. But there are rules, and most of them are there for good reasons.
The whole point here I think, is that if some country does this, and gets another's troops to surrender, thinking that a treaty, ceasefire, or armistice has been signed, then in the future, such proclamations, when true, will not be believed, and it will be difficult to stop wars.
By the way, if a future war on the scale of the Gulf War were carried out, in a modern internet connected country, I think it would immediately isolate it's networks, 1) To prevent information leakage and 2) To control information given to the populace as well as 3) To prevent cracking attacks.
To work out why we'd follow "rules" in war. War is a sorry way to solve problems anyway, and the only way you'd ever get convicted of one of these crimes is to get caught by the winners...
Remember, it's only a crime if your side loses. :)
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
In war, you can shoot people and drop bombs on them, including the civilians, but you can't *lie* to get them to surrender without needless bloodshed?
I guess I'm not as moral as our policy makers. Neither was Sun Tzu, apparently.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If so, you would know how seriously the U.S. military takes the laws of war. There is a very special place for those in the U.S. military that violate them. It's called Levenworth.
And if you depend on Ramsey Clark for your information, you are hopeless. The left lied extraordinarily about what happened in the Gulf War. For example, the left claimed over 10,000 killed on the "highway of death". Less than 100 bodies were found. Why? Because once the first truck was blow up and traffic came to a halt, people got the hell out of their vehicles and ran. Nobody is going to sit around in a parked vehicle and watch the A-10s circle over head and shoot at them. Iraqis are stupid, but not that stupid.
Also, talk to any Gulf War veteran that was in Kuwait City immediately after the war and ask them if we did the right thing.
I can see it now.
(begin sarcasm)
("Insert gravelly deep movie voice here")
The Army.
The Airforce.
The Navy.
The Marines.
In the future.. The United States' most dangerous weapon has now become fully operational.
The Hollywood Visual Effects House.
(end sarcasm)
Hey, you know.. If impersonating the president through a morph is illegal.. Forest Gump and Contact come to mind..
Our military is a highly professional force which desires to keep the peace and, that failing, to prosecute a war within the bounds of acceptability. The Geneva Conventions (there are, I believe, several of them) specify exactly what forms of war are and are not allowed. We do not break these conventions, at least not when fighting an enemy who respects them.
This has at times placed us at a disadvantage. Witness the Japanese (I am not certain if they had even signed the Conventions) and the Vietnamese, both notorious for their war crimes. Both tortured and otherwise mistreated POWs, the Japanese because they had no respect for those who surrender (an understandable viewpoint, that) and the Vietnamese, who claimed that every POW was a civil criminal and therefore not a POW (completely indefensible IMHO). We tend not to do this sort of thing.
DAMN!
You all should be glad that the pentagon is considering the moral and ethical implications of information warfare. What if they decided the other way. What if they said that morphing was good, that making the citizens riot and kill each other was the way to go. After all, Sun Tzu said that the enemy should already be defeated by the time you meet him on the field of battle (oxford translation). Coercing the citezens of a country to kill each other would be worse than the holocost, because more people would die, and in a more brutal fashion.
The fact that one of the world's most powerful military forces is thinking COMPASSIONATELY rather than strategically should make you all sleep easier. Criticising a person or body that's thinking in your best interest is one thing, doing so when you know very well that if they decided otherwise, you and the ones you care about could be burned alive or otherwise maimed is ludicrous.
I'm a United States Marine. I've been trained as to how disobeying the law of war makes the likelyhood of my dying on the field of battle greater, and likely more painful.
Get your heads out of the sand, the article is very positive if you think of the motives behind the findings.
Winning is good. When fighting monsters, however, you must be careful not to become one yourself.
tack
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
I've seen a lot of posts on here from people who don't understand why there are "war crimes" or why we would have any sort of "laws" about war.
It's actually fairly simple. A war crime is something that the majority of civilized people have expressed (through their leaders) as something unreasonably bad even as a part of war. A good example is biological weapons. These are cruel and inhumane, and generally considered inacceptable in any situation. Another example is wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, especially children. Other war crimes may just be dirty tricks, such as the one this article talks about.
The US military is very, very interested in information warfare. They would love not only to block enemy communications, but issue false orders. The ultimate "cyberwar" trick would be to take control of the head of state's communications channels and send false orders to the troops (or better yet, manipulate public opinion to bring a hostile country to a grinding halt or prevent a dangerous leader from being elected). I'm sure they're really bummed out that they're not allowed to do so.
Basically, I think they got together a group of experts in international law and asked them "How much can we get away with?" After all, they need to know what they can admit to in public...