What good would this data due Iran? What good would it do North Korea? I went through the site and I just don't see how that data is going to be useful to anyone.
This data by itself may be not very useful at all. However, like problems of database security, its value lies in the ability to cross-reference. When combined with other sources of data it may reveal things such as the launch schedule of classified Air Force payloads. For instance, from this site we know when all these launches happened at Vandenberg. We could go to manufacturers' web sites and find how they describe on X day of the month they successfully launched Y payload. If we can indentify which were commerical payloads we are then able to know that the unidentified payloads where classified.
Why is it irresponsable? As he states, these launches are viewable over a huge area, theres no way they can keep this stuff secret. The US certainly monitors launches made by other countries, so why is a little bit of monitoring of its own launches so bad? Do they really deem themselves that far above the rest of the world?
You are correct: it is not secret. But it is sensitive.
It comes down to the argument of where does one draw the line of protecting secret versus sensitive information. Both can allow a third party to reach the same conclusion. For instance, take the first Gulf War. It was secret as to when the U.S. was going to attack. So that wasn't leaked. But newspapers remarked on how much take-out food was being delivered to the White House. This is sensitive information because a third party could do a traffic analysis and come to the conclusion that increased food deliveries means increased planning activity and therefore they're going to attack very soon.
There are regular ICBM launches from VAFB to test/train missile crews and to test the reliability of the ageing ICBMs in the USAF arsenal.
I imagine several countries would be curious to find out if our ICBMs are failing tests. A web site like this would certainly help them find out. This could also be an argument for maintaining a strategic bomber force, if only a token one.
I wonder if the author will find himself being tailed by suited guys in cars from now on....
He should. How many countries would want this data? Rhetorical question: everyone. So even if he has naive intentions, this needs to be investigated because of possible impacts.
From a half mile away the effect is impressive. First you see a bright light but there is no noise. When the sound hits you it feels like you have been hit. If there is tall grass it bends over as the shock wave approaches. Then the sound just does not let up. Like a deep tissue amssage for a minute.
As the hair cells in your cochlea cry out, "Help us! We're melting!!"
I doubt the men in suits will be very pleased that you've been recording their activites.
Mr. Webb is documenting and publishing data on Vandenberg launches, data that is of interest to any country that wants to track and monitor U.S. military launches. No one in the American government or military is pleased with this.
There's probably something in the PATRIOT ACT reguarding (should be "regarding") this.
No, there isn't. This isn't illegal. But it is irresponsible.
or we can beam our favorite Simpsons episodes right back to source to prove our own intelligence.
If you'll forgive me for referencing the movie, Contact, and not the book (seen/read both)... They give an interesting idea. Instead of first broadcasting signals that require decoding the aliens simply broadcast pulses in a sequence of prime numbers.
Hey idiot - try looking up French law. In fact, try reading the article - the First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA has nothing to do with French law.
The "idiot" part obviously means you're correct and I'm mistaken. My sincerest pardons, my good man. Now you need to do two things: 1) stop hiding behind the Anonymous Coward posting, and 2) follow the link on comity, which is the point of my post and which you apparently neglected. The U.S. is under no obligation to adhere to French law. If we do so we do it out of courtesy or respect (i.e. "comity"). That is where the First Amendment comes into play.
Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)
Comity:...the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court's obligation to uphold the First Amendment... Accordingly, [Yahoo!'s] motion for summary judgment will be granted. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
So the French lost already. Why are they trying again?
(Taken from CyberLaw: Text and Cases, 2nd Ed. by Ferrera et.al.)
There is no episode 7, 8, or 9! These are American lies!! As we speak, Star Wars is committing suicide against our walls. The movie executives will have their stomachs roasted in hell!
When used properly, One Time Pad is impossible to break. Of course, carrying around enough truely random characters/bytes for all of your encrypting needs without getting caught is another story. And humans are notoriously good at not following directions properly....
True about the directions part. But one problem with one-time pads is the random part. A computer pseudo-random number generator would become a weak point to attack. Plus, it's usually the implementation of the cryptography that's the problem and not the algorithm itself.
Wouldn't eliminating the Republican's "free speech" on the web via DDOS attacks basically amount to cyber-terrorism?
Apparently the rationale is that another person is only open-minded if they think the same way as the first open-minded person. And if that isn't the case then, well, they're a bigoted Nazi and warrant being shouted down.
Hint! Hint! You wouldn't want Bush to go for more governmental control of the Internet in order to fight all kinds of cyber-terrorism, wouldn't you?
Too late. That was already planned at the last Rightwing Conspirary meeting.
And - if this really hits the Republicans, it won't be long before Bush's spin-doctors claim the whole idea was, in fact, initiated by Al Qaeda members.......remember how, in front of the UN in the run-up to the Iraq war, a couple of trucks in the middle of the desert were "mobile bio weapon research/development platforms"? (Exactly those that, like all the weapons of mass distruction, can't be found now)...
Throwing together Al Qaeda and Iraw randomly like that is what throws Democrats into a tizzy. As for Iraq's chemical weapons capability we should ask the Iranians who were on the receiving end of chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. Or the Kurds, Iraqi citizens, in Anfal. It can't be disputed that even if at D-Day Saddam didn't have piles of chemical warheads there's still 1) the ability to manufacture chemical weapons, and more importantly 2) the willingness to use them either on other nations or Iraq's own people.
And if this is any indication of the extents they'll go to in hiding multi-ton aircraft I'm curious as to how far they'll go to hide a few hundred pound drums?
I don't get why it would be legally admissable... What is a write-blocker and why would you need to use it? Doing a straight copy on a computer doesn't change the original files, so why is it legally considered tampering?
Even straight copying on a computer changes the access times on files, invalidating them for use in court. Would make it difficult to establish opportunity in cases such as hacking.
Actually, the worst part is anything he passed on is legally inadmissible. I'm guessing he did the copying without using a write-blocker. That effectively tampers with the evidence. Granted, that won't stop the CIA from acting on it.
I don't think that most "Christians" would have any problem with the idea that God created life elsewhere and didn't bother to give us details.
Very true. I'm a Christian and I don't have any trouble reconciling that belief. I, for one, also don't believe that the world was literally created in seven days, nor do I believe that God individually crafted each and every living creature. I think there's room for creationism and evolution.
As for being "created in His image." I doubt that means that God has ten fingers, ten toes, and a beard. Rather, I think Descartes summed it up well in analyzing why humans make mistakes. He said that humans have "infinite capacity of will and finite capacity of understanding." So essentially humans are like God in that we can will ourselves to any action we choose. Free will.
When I read "Lawyers in Space..." I immediately heard the Blue Danube while picturing an attorney, briefcase clutched firmly in hand, slowly spiraling his way through space.
Of course the Japanese have envisioned soldiers as walking gun platforms for years. I wonder how long it'll be before we see Mecha Warriors in real life...
I believe the Japanese plan for Mechas is to have them piloted by an elite corp of psychotic school children.
... on the conventional battlefield. Truck bombs in financial districts, airliners into skyscrapers and anthrax through the mail will be quite viable weapons no matter how much better our infantry gets.
This system should be an aid to the infantry on the ground, whether it be the forests of eastern Europe or the streets of Baghdad. The Army is admitting that the "conventional battlefield" is becoming less likely. For instance, not the lack of a planned replacement to the M1-A1 Abrahms main battle tank or the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter (although we do need the RAH-66 Comanche pretty badly). There's no need to kill columns of Soviet tanks anymore.
There's also no such thing as a purely defensive weapon and the America's intercontinental missle system was also billed as "defensive" spending. That's the only kind of military spending we officially admit to.
"Department of Defense" is a euphamism anyways along the lines of, "The best defense is a good offense."
Slashdot Mirror
What good would this data due Iran? What good would it do North Korea? I went through the site and I just don't see how that data is going to be useful to anyone.
This data by itself may be not very useful at all. However, like problems of database security, its value lies in the ability to cross-reference. When combined with other sources of data it may reveal things such as the launch schedule of classified Air Force payloads. For instance, from this site we know when all these launches happened at Vandenberg. We could go to manufacturers' web sites and find how they describe on X day of the month they successfully launched Y payload. If we can indentify which were commerical payloads we are then able to know that the unidentified payloads where classified.
Why is it irresponsable? As he states, these launches are viewable over a huge area, theres no way they can keep this stuff secret. The US certainly monitors launches made by other countries, so why is a little bit of monitoring of its own launches so bad? Do they really deem themselves that far above the rest of the world?
You are correct: it is not secret. But it is sensitive.
It comes down to the argument of where does one draw the line of protecting secret versus sensitive information. Both can allow a third party to reach the same conclusion. For instance, take the first Gulf War. It was secret as to when the U.S. was going to attack. So that wasn't leaked. But newspapers remarked on how much take-out food was being delivered to the White House. This is sensitive information because a third party could do a traffic analysis and come to the conclusion that increased food deliveries means increased planning activity and therefore they're going to attack very soon.
There are regular ICBM launches from VAFB to test/train missile crews and to test the reliability of the ageing ICBMs in the USAF arsenal.
I imagine several countries would be curious to find out if our ICBMs are failing tests. A web site like this would certainly help them find out. This could also be an argument for maintaining a strategic bomber force, if only a token one.
I wonder if the author will find himself being tailed by suited guys in cars from now on....
He should. How many countries would want this data? Rhetorical question: everyone. So even if he has naive intentions, this needs to be investigated because of possible impacts.
From a half mile away the effect is impressive. First you see a bright light but there is no noise. When the sound hits you it feels like you have been hit. If there is tall grass it bends over as the shock wave approaches. Then the sound just does not let up. Like a deep tissue amssage for a minute.
As the hair cells in your cochlea cry out, "Help us! We're melting!!"
I doubt the men in suits will be very pleased that you've been recording their activites.
Mr. Webb is documenting and publishing data on Vandenberg launches, data that is of interest to any country that wants to track and monitor U.S. military launches. No one in the American government or military is pleased with this.
There's probably something in the PATRIOT ACT reguarding (should be "regarding") this.
No, there isn't. This isn't illegal. But it is irresponsible.
or we can beam our favorite Simpsons episodes right back to source to prove our own intelligence.
If you'll forgive me for referencing the movie, Contact, and not the book (seen/read both)... They give an interesting idea. Instead of first broadcasting signals that require decoding the aliens simply broadcast pulses in a sequence of prime numbers.
Hey idiot - try looking up French law. In fact, try reading the article - the First Amendment of the Constitution of the USA has nothing to do with French law.
The "idiot" part obviously means you're correct and I'm mistaken. My sincerest pardons, my good man. Now you need to do two things: 1) stop hiding behind the Anonymous Coward posting, and 2) follow the link on comity, which is the point of my post and which you apparently neglected. The U.S. is under no obligation to adhere to French law. If we do so we do it out of courtesy or respect (i.e. "comity"). That is where the First Amendment comes into play.
Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme
169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)
Comity: ...the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court's obligation to uphold the First Amendment...
Accordingly, [Yahoo!'s] motion for summary judgment will be granted. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
So the French lost already. Why are they trying again?
(Taken from CyberLaw: Text and Cases, 2nd Ed. by Ferrera et.al.)
The story on this has changed a few times.
There is no episode 7, 8, or 9! These are American lies!! As we speak, Star Wars is committing suicide against our walls. The movie executives will have their stomachs roasted in hell!
When used properly, One Time Pad is impossible to break. Of course, carrying around enough truely random characters/bytes for all of your encrypting needs without getting caught is another story. And humans are notoriously good at not following directions properly....
True about the directions part. But one problem with one-time pads is the random part. A computer pseudo-random number generator would become a weak point to attack. Plus, it's usually the implementation of the cryptography that's the problem and not the algorithm itself.
Wouldn't eliminating the Republican's "free speech" on the web via DDOS attacks basically amount to cyber-terrorism?
Apparently the rationale is that another person is only open-minded if they think the same way as the first open-minded person. And if that isn't the case then, well, they're a bigoted Nazi and warrant being shouted down.
Hint! Hint! You wouldn't want Bush to go for more governmental control of the Internet in order to fight all kinds of cyber-terrorism, wouldn't you?
Too late. That was already planned at the last Rightwing Conspirary meeting.
And - if this really hits the Republicans, it won't be long before Bush's spin-doctors claim the whole idea was, in fact, initiated by Al Qaeda members.... ...remember how, in front of the UN in the run-up to the Iraq war, a couple of trucks in the middle of the desert were "mobile bio weapon research/development platforms"? (Exactly those that, like all the weapons of mass distruction, can't be found now)...
Throwing together Al Qaeda and Iraw randomly like that is what throws Democrats into a tizzy. As for Iraq's chemical weapons capability we should ask the Iranians who were on the receiving end of chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. Or the Kurds, Iraqi citizens, in Anfal. It can't be disputed that even if at D-Day Saddam didn't have piles of chemical warheads there's still 1) the ability to manufacture chemical weapons, and more importantly 2) the willingness to use them either on other nations or Iraq's own people.
And if this is any indication of the extents they'll go to in hiding multi-ton aircraft I'm curious as to how far they'll go to hide a few hundred pound drums?
i love armchair lawyers.
Taking classes in cyberlaw and digital forensics usually helps.
This is the military and CIA not the NYPD, these guys aren't going to go on trial, they are going to be executed the moment they are located.
There is a recent news article about a soldier and a widow suing a man associated with Al Qaeda. They wouldn't be able to use such evidence either.
I don't get why it would be legally admissable... What is a write-blocker and why would you need to use it? Doing a straight copy on a computer doesn't change the original files, so why is it legally considered tampering?
Even straight copying on a computer changes the access times on files, invalidating them for use in court. Would make it difficult to establish opportunity in cases such as hacking.
Actually, the worst part is anything he passed on is legally inadmissible. I'm guessing he did the copying without using a write-blocker. That effectively tampers with the evidence. Granted, that won't stop the CIA from acting on it.
I don't think that most "Christians" would have any problem with the idea that God created life elsewhere and didn't bother to give us details.
Very true. I'm a Christian and I don't have any trouble reconciling that belief. I, for one, also don't believe that the world was literally created in seven days, nor do I believe that God individually crafted each and every living creature. I think there's room for creationism and evolution.
As for being "created in His image." I doubt that means that God has ten fingers, ten toes, and a beard. Rather, I think Descartes summed it up well in analyzing why humans make mistakes. He said that humans have "infinite capacity of will and finite capacity of understanding." So essentially humans are like God in that we can will ourselves to any action we choose. Free will.
Learning how to program is NOT the same as teaching you how to THINK!
Good point. That's why, in addition to my BS in CS, I have minors in psychology, philosophy, and mathematics.
Half the college experience.
You can have my keg when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
When I read "Lawyers in Space..." I immediately heard the Blue Danube while picturing an attorney, briefcase clutched firmly in hand, slowly spiraling his way through space.
Of course the Japanese have envisioned soldiers as walking gun platforms for years. I wonder how long it'll be before we see Mecha Warriors in real life...
I believe the Japanese plan for Mechas is to have them piloted by an elite corp of psychotic school children.
China
They won't start anything. It's like biting the hand that feeds you. Where will they get their nuclear and rocket technology from after that?
This system should be an aid to the infantry on the ground, whether it be the forests of eastern Europe or the streets of Baghdad. The Army is admitting that the "conventional battlefield" is becoming less likely. For instance, not the lack of a planned replacement to the M1-A1 Abrahms main battle tank or the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter (although we do need the RAH-66 Comanche pretty badly). There's no need to kill columns of Soviet tanks anymore.
There's also no such thing as a purely defensive weapon and the America's intercontinental missle system was also billed as "defensive" spending. That's the only kind of military spending we officially admit to.
"Department of Defense" is a euphamism anyways along the lines of, "The best defense is a good offense."
And just how long do you think that they would get away with that in an open-source project?
Indefinitely if they're clever about it...