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
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
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
Which party to this whole turnip affair is named Baldrick?
An oxymoron or does it just sound stupid?
Fran
:):):)
1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
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 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.
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.
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.
Chivalry? I suppose that the answer to your first question is that the soldier is doing their job, the civilians are minding their own business. But then, at least on one side, some of the civilians tried to start the war (in most cases). But I agree completely, there's not much of a difference, dead is dead.
itachi
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?
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
A turnip shaped like a thingy?
Too far fetched. Serving turnips to POWs, and calling it food is a crime.
-- Abigail
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...
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
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...