UAS have some known, long term vulnerabilities that are intrinsic to UAS and cannot be "patched". There are ways some of them can be mitigated or minimized, but we're not talking about "patching a vulnerability" on a Linux host, here. I'm also not sure you're aware how long it takes to get ANY changes into operational ISR systems.
...and then to throw in the claim that the primary reason we'd want to continue to fly UAS missions over Iran would be to make their drone story seem "less credible", when that ridiculously and utterly pales in comparison to our actual reason for even doing this, which is Iran's nuclear program, instead of simply accepting that the drone crashed?
Actually, that's not the purpose of IO in US doctrine. Even MISO (formerly PSYOP) is defined as conveying selected TRUTHFUL information to a foreign audience. That's the whole point.
Not only that, but we're often fighting adversaries that propagandize and indoctrinate extensively, and routinely target US audiences via the media to serve their own purposes.
Well, let's see — not only is Iran Times is not state-owned, it is published in the US. It is also just repeating a Washington Post story. Further, the fact that the US is continuing to fly drone missions over Iran unabated runs counter to the Iranian government's narrative that they have the capability to "take down" a US drone in the first place.
Even with the kinds of services of which you speak, the idea is for them to NOT be obvious, which was the case with these allegations: the web sites in question, which you can still see cached in various places, didn't even pretend to be official or personal sites of the journalists. They just smeared them, and nothing more.
Of course, anyone who appears to hold a position you disagree with (or runs counter to the predictable Slashdot groupthink) is automatically a sockpuppet, right...?
To call this a Pentagon payback campaign is ridiculous. A "highly targeted, professional media manipulation effort"? What, anonymously registering a web site, social media accounts, and similar in a person's name, and then using them in a way so that even the most casual observer could see they weren't the actual people? Give me a break. Anyone who looks at either of the sites can see they weren't even hiding the fact they were trying to smear the reporters. It wasn't even thinly-veiled: it was as overt as you can get.
At MOST — and I'm not even saying it went this far — this would have been individuals not a part of the Pentagon who were perhaps upset that USA TODAY presented the story in the way it did (some parts of which were pretty poor, considering that IO is one of our primary tools in conflict, and we shouldn't somehow be ashamed of it). That doesn't justify a smear campaign, but it wouldn't have been coming from the "Pentagon", and no, it wouldn't have been done with a "wink, wink, nod" from the Pentagon, either.
I would say that this kind of blatant and pedestrian activity is amateur hour, but it doesn't even rise to that level. Consider, too, that ANYONE could have registered these sites in this fashion — including those who would love to stir up the notion in the US that the "government" is somehow running smear campaigns against journalists. I'm not saying that is what occurred, but the truth is that when IO is done right — other than activities that are intended to destroy a target — an adversary won't even know about it.
Think about it: if you wanted to run a secret smear campaign against someone, would you make it blatantly obvious?
Believing a drone whose undercarriage is completely obscured, probably due to significant damage, is "undamaged" is what's biased. The US asking for the drone back doesn't verify it didn't crash. It verifies they have our drone — which they do.
The most I can see them doing is build a mockup that looks like it, showing it flying, and then the entire world concluding, "OMG, they copied the US drone!!!111" — except that it won't contain any of the systems and technology aboard the RQ-170.
Interestingly, as the Western press and pundits hyperventilated over the loss of the drone, Iran's state-controlled media and spokesmen repeatedly changed and finessed their story to fit with the most panicked narratives of "what might have happened".
Logic would dictate that the drone simply malfunctioned and crashed, or at absolute MOST had its control link jammed — a known vulnerability of UAS — and was not brought down in a controlled fashion, nor has been "reverse-engineered".
The trouble — the fact that no one making these claims actually knows what capabilities may or may not exist — is that many jump to the conclusion that "technically possible" == "must be doing".
In order to fulfill the mission of performing foreign signals intelligence, NSA MUST be able to discern, identify, and target communications of non-US Persons within the United States.
Examining the metadata — the "envelope" — of communications, such as source and destination IPs, email addresses, DNS names, and similar, is allowable without a warrant, and has long been understood to be fair game. The content of the communications of US Persons anywhere on the globe is off limits without a properly adjudicated warrant. The only reason that the "warrantless wiretapping" controversy even existed was because there was a rush to do everything possible to prevent another domestic attack after 9/11. The legislative landscape caught up with reality with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
This excerpt (An 'Intel Gap': What We're Missing, Newsweek, Aug 6, 2007) sums up the issue:
The intel gap results partly from rapid changes in the technology carrying much of the world's message traffic (principally telephone calls and e-mails). The National Security Agency is falling so far behind in upgrading its infrastructure to cope with the digital age that the agency has had problems with its electricity supply, forcing some offices to temporarily shut down. The gap is also partly a result of administration fumbling over legal authorization for eavesdropping by U.S. agencies.
The post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required a warrant for eavesdropping on people in the U.S. But after 9/11, the administration asserted that warrants weren't needed to surveil communications involving suspected terrorists even inside the U.S. The controversy over "warrantless wiretapping" made intel officials gun-shy about eavesdropping even on messages they would have regarded as fair game before 9/11.
According to both administration and congressional officials (anonymous when discussing such issues), the White House and intelligence czar's office are now urgently trying to negotiate a legal fix with Congress that would make it easier for NSA to eavesdrop on e-mails and phone calls where all parties are located outside the U.S., even if at some point the message signal crosses into U.S. territory.
Much of the electronic communications NSA once pored over, between two parties communicating with each other outside the U.S., used to travel via satellite or radiolike signal, leaving NSA free to pluck the messages out of the air. Technological innovations, however, have shifted more and more traffic—both e-mail and telephone calls—to hard-wired or fiberoptic networks, many of which have critical switching or transit facilities inside the U.S. Therefore, intel-collection officials concluded that FISA court authorizations should be obtained to eavesdrop not just on messages where at least one party is inside the country, but also for eavesdropping on messages between two parties overseas that pass through U.S. communications gear. Two officials familiar with the controversy, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive material, said that had the administration initially been candid about its antiterror surveillance plans, it could have worked with Congress years ago to tweak the FISA laws to account for the technological changes. One of the officials said the administration's secretiveness had, in this case, created problems for antiterrorism efforts.
So we got the stopgap Protect America Act of 2007, and the ultimate changes in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, along with the August 2008 FISC ruling.
A lot of things were done immediately after 9/11 which were justified — whether rightly or not — by the AUMF. It took several years for the law to catch up to the urgency of what was happening aft
I have, have you? The number of launches in the USA has steadily declined from mid-30s in the late 90s to 15-20 in the last few years.
Yes. I have. And the effectiveness and reliability of our space launches, missions, and systems is the best in the world. Not to sound trite, but quantity doesn't equal quality.
"Isolated anecdotes or complaints"?? The entire USA population is subject to be groped or looked at in the nude at the airport. These are not isolated anecdotes, this is every day life.
Yes, "isolated anecdotes or complaints". "Being looked at nude at the airport"? Really? The millimeter wave advanced imaging systems show a generic outline of a person with a box identifying a suspicious area. The backscatter X-ray systems have controls designed to enforce privacy.
And you can opt out of ALL advanced imaging. How do I know? Because I fly routinely, and opt out routinely — and no, I'm not "punished" or "targeted" because of it.
Either they exist only in your imagination or they are not very bright. All they need to do is point to the Patriot Act for a list.
Okay, please show me the "list". And yes, this is a rhetorical question. Most of the "Patriot Act" was simply updates to woefully outdated legislation. It is a very large act that impacted a large body of law, and very few of its provisions caused a large amount of controversy — and that's what happens in our legislative and judicial systems: panic and a rush when "something happens", give and take, controversy, and compromise until equilibrium is reached.
Among freedoms and rights lost are the freedom to fly without government issued ID
I flew without ID as a selectee numerous times until the TSA implemented a measure that disallows persons from refusing to show ID associated with a boarding pass simply because they feel like it. The TSA officer at the podium couldn't care less who you are. All they're looking at is to see that your ID matches a boarding pass. Yes, it's been demonstrated how this can be easily circumvented, but it's just one layer of security, and one of the ways that can help a No-Fly list be effective. Can it be defeated, and can you book a flight with a name not on the No-Fly list and use a fake ID? Or book a flight with a name belonging to a "real" ID with the wrong picture, and then create a fake boarding pass? Absolutely. Security experts have demonstrated this, and no doubt TSA's own red team activities has repeatedly documented such vulnerabilities. Is the concept of a No-Fly list, or ID/boarding pass matching perfect? Nope. But nothing is. And I'm perfectly open to arguments about effectiveness of the TSA in general. But is matching an ID to a boarding pass when the agent to whom you show it literally doesn't care who you are "taking away your rights"?
TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down.
The content of the communications of US Persons is OFF LIMITS without a warrant. Interpreting the METADATA of communications has always been allowable without a warrant, which is REQUIRED to identify and discern the communications of non-US Persons, some of which travels via equipment and networks within the US, and does NOT require a warrant (and never has).
You don't have to trust me on this one, as parts of the Patriot Act have already been found unconstitutional by the courts.
The fact that a part(s) of ANY duly-passed legislation can be later found to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction is exactly how our system of law works.
You seem to be confusing the "USA" with something else. The US space program isn't suddenly "weak" because we don't have an active manned spaceflight capability. Have you kept track of recent US space exploration and satellite programs, none of which require a human to be aboard? We — the "USA" and the free world at large — are adding to the body of knowledge faster than at any time in human history. The achievements of the USA, Europe, and to an extent the former USSR, are what much of the rest of the world has relied upon for scientific advancement in recent history.
"9/11" has zero to do with this argument. People like to talk about how freedoms have been lost, but aside from isolated anecdotes or complaints about airport security, no one is typically able to identify a freedom that they have ACTUALLY LOST. That is, something they could do before, but can't now. Freedom is not black or white, and the US — and Europe — has never had absolute freedom. Meanwhile, there are plenty of nations, including China, which demonstrate a significant and severe curtailing of citizens' freedoms, to say nothing about Syria, Iran, the Taliban, etc.
In the US, Europe, and the rest of the free world we learn more about the world and the workings of our government, faster, and in more detail, than at any previous point in history. A large part of this is due to the internet and the commitment that the US, Europe, and our allies demonstrate to internet freedom — but would the internet as we know it today have existed without the US, and its academic, military, and space programs? This is not to denigrate Europe in the least, but the answer is almost certainly: not likely.
So bash the US all you want...but if you believe Europe will continue along happily without a significant counterbalance to ideals that run counter to freedom and democracy I doubt you would like the way the world would look. China and Russia are not standing still in their hopes to displace the US at every turn — both are waiting in the wings to expand their presence in Afghanistan as the US draws down; China is displacing the US in South America; and regimes in the mideast are not going to suddenly become peaceful and free.
And by the way — if you believe the principles and ideals the US and the West stand for have any value whatsoever, then those principles are still worth defending against those who don't share them, and would desire to project their own...
We are not perfect, but before there is a chorus of responses decrying how the US is somehow "oppressing" its people, I genuinely hope those who believe that never see actual oppression...
Hey, I appreciate a non sequitur quote from the founding fathers as much as anyone — or should we take this to mean that the United States monitoring an attempted long-range missile test by North Korea is somehow "oppressing" us?
And you've also demonstrated, even if not your intent, quite well why secrets are necessary, even in open and democratic societies — not to keep them from our own citizens, but to prevent adversaries from understanding our capabilities, techniques, sources, and methods.
Missile defense, as the name implies, _is_ defensive. It gives _us_ the advantage, which is a good thing — unless, of course, you don't want us to have that advantage.
Not a drone, but the US Navy's Sea-based X-band RADAR (SBX-1) — a completely self-propelled (max speed: 8 knots), semi-submersible modified oil platform designed for use in high winds and heavy seas — is also part of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away. SBX-1 sailed to the region to monitor the North Korean launch:
This assumes that detaining (in military custody) persons who have taken up arms against the United States and have been identified as enemy combatants violates the Constitution. I submit it does not. Others, including yourself, may disagree. The military detention provision was designed to clear up this issue, and I'm not saying it is without controversy.
You mean the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the entire federal defense budget, and of which there is one every single fiscal year, is always passed around the same time, and which always has controversial provisions because they're easy to stick into a defense spending bill?
Oh, you mean the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, which had a total of about two controversial sentences out of hundreds of pages, clearly codifying what has been standard practice for persons identified as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay for several years?
The one that people thought was some kind of a "secret plot" to indefinitely imprison random American citizens in military custody without trial, even though the wording says persons must be a "part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners"?
That NDAA? Oh. Yeah. Completely and totally unrelated. But nice try bringing something like military detention provisions into a story about a local school board's email communications!
And the part about how these apps weren't "malware", irrespective of whether they were doing something previously allowable without explicit user permission.
So it's not at all accurate to say that it's "happening on the App Store too".
You're the first person to take a story about China's egregious behavior, and turn it around on the US.
In the first 10 posts on the story, no less. Bravo, sir. Bravo. *golf clap*
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947
Slashdot Mirror
The depth of intelligent discourse, the subtle give-and-take of reasoned debate — these are the reasons I love slashdot!
...since the one in the story appears dead.
Expectation of extraterrestrial life built more on optimism than evidence
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/04/General-Science-Expectation-Of-Extraterrestrial-Life-Built-More-On-Optimism-Than-Evidence/
Is the search for ET pie-in-the-sky fantasy?
http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/is-the-search-for-et-pie-in-the-sky-fantasy/
We Really Hope ET is Out There, But There’s Not Enough Scientific Evidence, Researchers Say
http://www.universetoday.com/94838/we-really-hope-et-is-out-there-but-theres-not-enough-scientific-evidence-researchers-say/
Oh man, this is great.
UAS have some known, long term vulnerabilities that are intrinsic to UAS and cannot be "patched". There are ways some of them can be mitigated or minimized, but we're not talking about "patching a vulnerability" on a Linux host, here. I'm also not sure you're aware how long it takes to get ANY changes into operational ISR systems.
Actually, that's not the purpose of IO in US doctrine. Even MISO (formerly PSYOP) is defined as conveying selected TRUTHFUL information to a foreign audience. That's the whole point.
Not only that, but we're often fighting adversaries that propagandize and indoctrinate extensively, and routinely target US audiences via the media to serve their own purposes.
So you can stop being ashamed, now, since "lying" isn't the purpose of IO. If you want to learn about what IO actually is, see: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf
Well, let's see — not only is Iran Times is not state-owned, it is published in the US. It is also just repeating a Washington Post story. Further, the fact that the US is continuing to fly drone missions over Iran unabated runs counter to the Iranian government's narrative that they have the capability to "take down" a US drone in the first place.
Is FOX News a better source?
How about:
Stars and Stripes
Business Insider
Even with the kinds of services of which you speak, the idea is for them to NOT be obvious, which was the case with these allegations: the web sites in question, which you can still see cached in various places, didn't even pretend to be official or personal sites of the journalists. They just smeared them, and nothing more.
Of course, anyone who appears to hold a position you disagree with (or runs counter to the predictable Slashdot groupthink) is automatically a sockpuppet, right...?
To call this a Pentagon payback campaign is ridiculous. A "highly targeted, professional media manipulation effort"? What, anonymously registering a web site, social media accounts, and similar in a person's name, and then using them in a way so that even the most casual observer could see they weren't the actual people? Give me a break. Anyone who looks at either of the sites can see they weren't even hiding the fact they were trying to smear the reporters. It wasn't even thinly-veiled: it was as overt as you can get.
At MOST — and I'm not even saying it went this far — this would have been individuals not a part of the Pentagon who were perhaps upset that USA TODAY presented the story in the way it did (some parts of which were pretty poor, considering that IO is one of our primary tools in conflict, and we shouldn't somehow be ashamed of it). That doesn't justify a smear campaign, but it wouldn't have been coming from the "Pentagon", and no, it wouldn't have been done with a "wink, wink, nod" from the Pentagon, either.
I would say that this kind of blatant and pedestrian activity is amateur hour, but it doesn't even rise to that level. Consider, too, that ANYONE could have registered these sites in this fashion — including those who would love to stir up the notion in the US that the "government" is somehow running smear campaigns against journalists. I'm not saying that is what occurred, but the truth is that when IO is done right — other than activities that are intended to destroy a target — an adversary won't even know about it.
Think about it: if you wanted to run a secret smear campaign against someone, would you make it blatantly obvious?
So why aren't they bringing down every UAS that continues to fly surveillance missions over Iran?
Common sense doesn't have a bias.
Believing a drone whose undercarriage is completely obscured, probably due to significant damage, is "undamaged" is what's biased. The US asking for the drone back doesn't verify it didn't crash. It verifies they have our drone — which they do.
The most I can see them doing is build a mockup that looks like it, showing it flying, and then the entire world concluding, "OMG, they copied the US drone!!!111" — except that it won't contain any of the systems and technology aboard the RQ-170.
Would be a great propaganda victory for Iran, though. Which is exactly the sort of thing they're looking for. Iran's playing up the drone story again, this week saying that Russia and China are aggressively seeking information about it, and then two days later making this "announcement"? With Iran claiming it used a force field and "advanced space technology" to down the drone (and no, this isn't simply a failure of the translation), nothing is too surprising.
Of course, US drones have been flying over Iran for years, and drones are still flying over Iran after the RQ-170 incident.
Interestingly, as the Western press and pundits hyperventilated over the loss of the drone, Iran's state-controlled media and spokesmen repeatedly changed and finessed their story to fit with the most panicked narratives of "what might have happened".
Logic would dictate that the drone simply malfunctioned and crashed, or at absolute MOST had its control link jammed — a known vulnerability of UAS — and was not brought down in a controlled fashion, nor has been "reverse-engineered".
The trouble — the fact that no one making these claims actually knows what capabilities may or may not exist — is that many jump to the conclusion that "technically possible" == "must be doing".
In order to fulfill the mission of performing foreign signals intelligence, NSA MUST be able to discern, identify, and target communications of non-US Persons within the United States.
Examining the metadata — the "envelope" — of communications, such as source and destination IPs, email addresses, DNS names, and similar, is allowable without a warrant, and has long been understood to be fair game. The content of the communications of US Persons anywhere on the globe is off limits without a properly adjudicated warrant. The only reason that the "warrantless wiretapping" controversy even existed was because there was a rush to do everything possible to prevent another domestic attack after 9/11. The legislative landscape caught up with reality with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
This excerpt (An 'Intel Gap': What We're Missing, Newsweek, Aug 6, 2007) sums up the issue:
So we got the stopgap Protect America Act of 2007, and the ultimate changes in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, along with the August 2008 FISC ruling.
A lot of things were done immediately after 9/11 which were justified — whether rightly or not — by the AUMF. It took several years for the law to catch up to the urgency of what was happening aft
But congratulations on being the second (of the only two posts) to draw an erroneous "post-9/11" link to a great aviation geek achievement.
I have, have you? The number of launches in the USA has steadily declined from mid-30s in the late 90s to 15-20 in the last few years.
Yes. I have. And the effectiveness and reliability of our space launches, missions, and systems is the best in the world. Not to sound trite, but quantity doesn't equal quality.
"Isolated anecdotes or complaints"?? The entire USA population is subject to be groped or looked at in the nude at the airport. These are not isolated anecdotes, this is every day life.
Yes, "isolated anecdotes or complaints". "Being looked at nude at the airport"? Really? The millimeter wave advanced imaging systems show a generic outline of a person with a box identifying a suspicious area. The backscatter X-ray systems have controls designed to enforce privacy.
And you can opt out of ALL advanced imaging. How do I know? Because I fly routinely, and opt out routinely — and no, I'm not "punished" or "targeted" because of it.
Either they exist only in your imagination or they are not very bright. All they need to do is point to the Patriot Act for a list.
Okay, please show me the "list". And yes, this is a rhetorical question. Most of the "Patriot Act" was simply updates to woefully outdated legislation. It is a very large act that impacted a large body of law, and very few of its provisions caused a large amount of controversy — and that's what happens in our legislative and judicial systems: panic and a rush when "something happens", give and take, controversy, and compromise until equilibrium is reached.
Among freedoms and rights lost are the freedom to fly without government issued ID
I flew without ID as a selectee numerous times until the TSA implemented a measure that disallows persons from refusing to show ID associated with a boarding pass simply because they feel like it. The TSA officer at the podium couldn't care less who you are. All they're looking at is to see that your ID matches a boarding pass. Yes, it's been demonstrated how this can be easily circumvented, but it's just one layer of security, and one of the ways that can help a No-Fly list be effective. Can it be defeated, and can you book a flight with a name not on the No-Fly list and use a fake ID? Or book a flight with a name belonging to a "real" ID with the wrong picture, and then create a fake boarding pass? Absolutely. Security experts have demonstrated this, and no doubt TSA's own red team activities has repeatedly documented such vulnerabilities. Is the concept of a No-Fly list, or ID/boarding pass matching perfect? Nope. But nothing is. And I'm perfectly open to arguments about effectiveness of the TSA in general. But is matching an ID to a boarding pass when the agent to whom you show it literally doesn't care who you are "taking away your rights"?
the freedom to take pictures of airports
False.
False.
The content of the communications of US Persons is OFF LIMITS without a warrant. Interpreting the METADATA of communications has always been allowable without a warrant, which is REQUIRED to identify and discern the communications of non-US Persons, some of which travels via equipment and networks within the US, and does NOT require a warrant (and never has).
You don't have to trust me on this one, as parts of the Patriot Act have already been found unconstitutional by the courts.
The fact that a part(s) of ANY duly-passed legislation can be later found to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction is exactly how our system of law works.
Right, the Patriot Act has zer
You seem to be confusing the "USA" with something else. The US space program isn't suddenly "weak" because we don't have an active manned spaceflight capability. Have you kept track of recent US space exploration and satellite programs, none of which require a human to be aboard? We — the "USA" and the free world at large — are adding to the body of knowledge faster than at any time in human history. The achievements of the USA, Europe, and to an extent the former USSR, are what much of the rest of the world has relied upon for scientific advancement in recent history.
"9/11" has zero to do with this argument. People like to talk about how freedoms have been lost, but aside from isolated anecdotes or complaints about airport security, no one is typically able to identify a freedom that they have ACTUALLY LOST. That is, something they could do before, but can't now. Freedom is not black or white, and the US — and Europe — has never had absolute freedom. Meanwhile, there are plenty of nations, including China, which demonstrate a significant and severe curtailing of citizens' freedoms, to say nothing about Syria, Iran, the Taliban, etc.
In the US, Europe, and the rest of the free world we learn more about the world and the workings of our government, faster, and in more detail, than at any previous point in history. A large part of this is due to the internet and the commitment that the US, Europe, and our allies demonstrate to internet freedom — but would the internet as we know it today have existed without the US, and its academic, military, and space programs? This is not to denigrate Europe in the least, but the answer is almost certainly: not likely.
So bash the US all you want...but if you believe Europe will continue along happily without a significant counterbalance to ideals that run counter to freedom and democracy I doubt you would like the way the world would look. China and Russia are not standing still in their hopes to displace the US at every turn — both are waiting in the wings to expand their presence in Afghanistan as the US draws down; China is displacing the US in South America; and regimes in the mideast are not going to suddenly become peaceful and free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
http://www.youtube.com/user/UnitedLaunchAlliance
This is the future:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/smaller-quicker-secret-space/all/1
And by the way — if you believe the principles and ideals the US and the West stand for have any value whatsoever, then those principles are still worth defending against those who don't share them, and would desire to project their own...
We are not perfect, but before there is a chorus of responses decrying how the US is somehow "oppressing" its people, I genuinely hope those who believe that never see actual oppression...
Hey, I appreciate a non sequitur quote from the founding fathers as much as anyone — or should we take this to mean that the United States monitoring an attempted long-range missile test by North Korea is somehow "oppressing" us?
...with controversy. But it's dead.
Much more plausible (and deniable, and non-attributable...) is downing it with cyber.
Quite right.
And you've also demonstrated, even if not your intent, quite well why secrets are necessary, even in open and democratic societies — not to keep them from our own citizens, but to prevent adversaries from understanding our capabilities, techniques, sources, and methods.
No, I understand all too well. The doctrinal notion of MAD, even if absurd, only works when your enemy fears or cares about destruction (as we do).
To paraphrase The Peacemaker, I'm not afraid of the man who wants a hundred nuclear weapons — I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.
Missile defense, as the name implies, _is_ defensive. It gives _us_ the advantage, which is a good thing — unless, of course, you don't want us to have that advantage.
Not a drone, but the US Navy's Sea-based X-band RADAR (SBX-1) — a completely self-propelled (max speed: 8 knots), semi-submersible modified oil platform designed for use in high winds and heavy seas — is also part of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away. SBX-1 sailed to the region to monitor the North Korean launch:
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/29/navy-ships-out-radar-system-ahead-of-north-korea-launch/
A brief history of SBX-1 — great pictures: http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/sbx_booklet.pdf
This assumes that detaining (in military custody) persons who have taken up arms against the United States and have been identified as enemy combatants violates the Constitution. I submit it does not. Others, including yourself, may disagree. The military detention provision was designed to clear up this issue, and I'm not saying it is without controversy.
You mean the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the entire federal defense budget, and of which there is one every single fiscal year, is always passed around the same time, and which always has controversial provisions because they're easy to stick into a defense spending bill?
Oh, you mean the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, which had a total of about two controversial sentences out of hundreds of pages, clearly codifying what has been standard practice for persons identified as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay for several years?
The one that people thought was some kind of a "secret plot" to indefinitely imprison random American citizens in military custody without trial, even though the wording says persons must be a "part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners"?
That NDAA? Oh. Yeah. Completely and totally unrelated. But nice try bringing something like military detention provisions into a story about a local school board's email communications!
Apple: App Access to Contact Data Will Require Explicit User Permission
I guess you forgot that part.
And the part about how these apps weren't "malware", irrespective of whether they were doing something previously allowable without explicit user permission.
So it's not at all accurate to say that it's "happening on the App Store too".
You're the first person to take a story about China's egregious behavior, and turn it around on the US.
In the first 10 posts on the story, no less. Bravo, sir. Bravo. *golf clap*
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Speech in the House of Commons, November 11, 1947
Already known, even to amateurs.
And the White House has been warning the media about this.