Slashdot Log In
Can Open Source Give Comfort To the Enemy?
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:29 PM
from the homeland-security-card dept.
from the homeland-security-card dept.
zlite writes "We make open source Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones), mostly for geomapping and other amateur uses. One of our problems is that most people think of UAVs as Scary Things, and despite our efforts to prove otherwise there's always the risk of regulatory crackdowns. We have amateur UAV participants from around the world, but now they've been joined by an Iranian in Tehran, who has made a UAV in the colors of the Iranian flag. My instinct is that we should welcome everyone, everywhere, but I'm sure some in Washington worry that this looks like helping an 'Axis of Evil' country make advanced weapons. They could shut us down with the stroke of a pen. My question: is there ever a case for letting national security issues dictate the limits of an open source project?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Flag?! (Score:4, Funny)
As if Americans don't festoon their flag everywere.
Patiotic? "Nationalistic"? God.
Re:Flag?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Flag?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Flag?! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Doing the government's work for them (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to do the government's work for them, sure.
If you are shutting down a project based solely on the fear that your government may shut you down in the future (and not for a valid reason), you are only saving them the trouble, and making it that much worse for the next controversial open-source project that comes along.
Re:Doing the government's work for them (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't the situation where they send you a DCMA notice and turn your website off. This is where they show up with a warrant, search your house and incarcerate you with a million dollar bail because they are charging you with violation of the arms export laws of this country. This isn't the kind of thing you fool around with, if you think there is a possibility that the UAV project you are working on is being copied by a foreign military or anyone within a country on the export list you could be in serious trouble for continuing. Regardless of how you feel about the politics, if you don't want to go to jail, you implement controls on the information you are providing (to prevent access by countries on the weapons export list) or you get someone outside the US to head the project and control the website. That is, if you care about spending the next 25 years in federal prison.
Parent
Re:Doing the government's work for them (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yes, all those "If you are a terrorist, please do not download this file" warnings we see on stites with encryption software and such. I'm sure that is extremely effective. And terrroists don't know how to use proxy servers to hide their IP location either.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Why would a court, should it come to that, accept an honour system as a security measure? If you have a duty to prevent "enemies" from accessing something, leaving it in the open, unguarded, with a "please do not take" sign on it is evidence of criminal negligence, not of fulfilling your duty. Judges are notoriously technically ignorant, but even they understand that this is useless. Why do you think this figleaf will protect you? Has anyone ever tested this
Re:Doing the government's work for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Gamble his freedom? If he can't talk to whoever he wants on the internet without fear of government agents kicking in his door while he sleeps, his freedom is already gone.
Parent
Open to all (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, something tells me no open source UAV software will ever be capable of running a weapons platform without significant contributions. If a country can build a UAV capable of military grade recon or even able to field weapons, they won't have any problem writing the software.
Tradecraft? (Score:5, Interesting)
One would think someone infiltrating a group to aid a hostile government would be able to cover their tracks a little better. Maybe use a cutout in Germany, South America or Canada. It would be pretty foolish for the Iranian Air Force to use an IP that traces back to Tehran. Just because they talk with an accent doesn't mean they think with one.
Besides, if the Iranians want advanced UAV's, the Russians will sell them whatever is in their inventory. The Chinese, who probably make a lot of the circuit boards and sub systems for our military, would happily sell them their 100% original design...that just happens to look amazingly like ours. Heeeey.
If they struck out there then they're down to the French, Taiwanese, North Koreans and a half-dozen other countries happy to sell them weapons systems under the table.
Of course, this is the Bush administration we're talking about here. Logic and common sense hold no sway in American government and people get appointed to high office because they're skilled fund raisers. So, yeah, I could see them shaking down you guys just because it makes them feel like they're doing something and they can understand you when you talk...if you limit yourself to simple words. Plus you're convenient driving distance from their offices.
Is it that simple? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words: believe it or not, there are somethings that are more important than "freedom"...as far as SOFTWARE goes. =P
It ain't rocket science (Score:5, Informative)
Bottom line -- trying to restrict such technology is laughable these days. Microchip literally gives away [microchip.com] microcontrollers capable of handling a small aircraft, given the right software and interface electronics. These "evil terr-a-rists" will always be able to get their hands on technology. What we need is to find a way to make it politically difficult for them to continue as terrorists. (I.E. find a diplomatic solution.)
Technology doesn't matter in the long run... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you will laugh when the next Ice Age comes.
And cry when the next asteroid hits...
The only "hope", if there is a point, is to get geographically diversified. And by geographically, I mean light-years.
Anyone Still Listening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is anyone still taking these guys seriously? I mean, the "Axis of Evil" was coined at the time when the whole cast was performing a play where they convinced the USAmerican public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a great threat to the USA. Now that has been exposed for the load of bollocks many of us already saw it for at the time. The whole "Axis of Evil" concept was invented to scare the American public into thinking there was a conspiracy against them, but, in all the time since then, none of the countries on this supposed axis have actually attacked the USA. The only aggressor in this whole stage play has been the USA itself, with the demagogues leading the violence somehow escaping scrutiny. Sure, Iraqis are killing US soldiers _now_, but, well, can you blame them, after said soldiers plunged their country into an anarchy where it's news if there is a day _without_ bombings? And the same guys who came up with the "Axis of Evil" told you that the US soldiers would be received as heroes and bring peace and stability to Iraq.
And now you are saying that X is a good idea, but we'd better not do it because the "Axis of Evil" guys may not like it? I'm not saying the idea is good and you should do it, but _not_ doing it because of those demagogues seems about as bad an idea as they get. They've done enough damage already!
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine if someone decided to design an open source cruise missile.
The U.S.A. already leaned on the New Zealand gov't to shut down a guy making a (non-open source) DIY cruise missile just to prove that he could do it. The NZ version of the IRS hound him into bankruptcy.
Not to mention that his gov't even said it'd be perfectly fine if he sold the technology to Iran. BTW - He didn't.
A revamped V1 as the AK-47 of aerial warfare (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine if someone decided to design an open source cruise missile. ... DIY cruise missile
That guy was developing something that some strategic intel people have been expecting for years [darpa.mil] - a simple V1-like UAV, but with modern guidance.
The V1 of WWII was a very simple device, built cheaply out of sheet metal with a crude engine. Range of several hundred miles. Moderately reliable airframe. But the guidance systems of that era had trouble finding London, and hitting a specific military target was ho
Iranian flag? (Score:3, Funny)
If you are going to fly it in the US, just paint it sideways. The worst problem you'll then encounter is border patrol thinking its those illegal Mexican immigrants crossing by air.
Respect Mah Authoritay (Score:5, Informative)
My question: is there ever a case for letting national security issues dictate the limits of an open source project?"
Crypto was kept out of the Linux kernel for a long time, since the US had regulation on exporting crypto systems. These were mostly lifted under Clinton, though there's still a list of countries that it's illegal to export to (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria, according to: http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/regs_1_ 00.html [epic.org]).
RMS has stated that if copyright laws in the vein of the DMCA continue to be passed, Free Software development could no longer take place in US borders.
Germany was recently hit with a law that outlawed "hacking software", apparently including nmap or packet sniffers.
It's nice to say that you want to do things for the good of humanity, but beaurocrats have other ideas.
Reality Check Required (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iranian Government currently has the technology to produce:
And you think that stopping a not for profit, model aircraft UAV building group is going to limit their ability to produce a military UAV.
So how many other open source projects may have secret Iranian participants, shall we shut them all down.
How about shutting down Linux because it can be used by the Iranians to build super computers like they do in the west to test bomb designs.?
Lets ban all knowledge because the terrorists may get at it.
If Iran can build a nuclear reactor (Score:3, Insightful)
creating a UAV without assistance? Having spent a fair amount of time in the middle east I can tell you that their population in many cases has better access to technology than we do here in the states.
I think if they have the smarts and capability to build a reactor that a UAV would not be real difficult for them.
Coca-Cola Co. is a traitor then too! (Score:3, Insightful)
So does that mean that Coca-Cola Co. is lending aid and comfort to the enemy??
An UAV (Score:3, Interesting)
A smarter device isn't that hard to create today - a GPS, gyro and a small one-chip computer will make things easy. Failure rate may be higher than for the military spec UAV:s but what's missing in precision can be made up by larger numbers.
So all R/C equipment around may also be a security risk.
I'm sure that this is causing dandruff for some security people. Just accept that the worms are out of the can.
And anyway - there are better ways to streak terror in people than with UAV:s. - They are too visible, rather slow and can be spotted before they are about to cause any big trouble.
Don't Ask Slashdot, ask ICE (Score:4, Informative)
ICE has a program called Project Shield America that is designed for exactly this type of thing. Their goal is to try to educate industry about what can and can't be exported.
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/shield07120
Lastly, IANAIA (I am not an ICE agent) but I suspect their answer is probably going to be that exporting UAV technology to Iran is a no-no. I'm sure it depends on exactly what you are doing, but from a quick googling, it looks like a lot of UAV related technology is restricted.
Why is it that I feel like I'm about to get modded back into the Stone Age?
UAVs ARE scary things (Score:4, Informative)
We're already trained to look for birds, which are bad enough bad at least have the courtesy to move in a way that attracts the eye naturally. But UAVs are very hard to see and do not talk on the radio to let other aircraft know where they are ("I see you about 2 miles off my wing"). They can't even look around to see what other VFR aircraft (who are not required to carry anything more complex than eyeballs to avoid collisions) they might be nearing and steer clear.
Outside of controlled airspaces, these things are deathtraps waiting to happen unless very clear rules govern their deployment, just as there are rules for other moving hazards like sykdivers ("sykdivers in the air from x-thousand feet in the area imediately south of mumblefrotz airfield, traffic steer clear"). Too many, and they're be the only things in the sky. Too few, and there won't be enough general awareness of their use in VFR airspaces.
Re:Give the (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't bite the propaganda of AIPAC or Dick Cheney! Israel is the nuclear armed agressor in the Middle East.
Persian culture, by way of contrast, produced the world's first assertion and declaration of Human Rights, and is responsible for the foundation of modern mathematics.
You want ethical and humane living? Read the Avesta of Zoroaster. Unlike the rabid Old Testament, it pleads that humanity have good thought, good speech and good deeds, not casting it's neighbors as "abominations" and wishing them plagues.
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology is not inherently wrong/evil/whatever. Technology is just technology. And if an Iranian kid finds some peaceful apps for technology, good for him, hope he inspires the hell out of his friends to do the same.
Let's face it, you can use a baseball bat to play baseball. Or, you can use it to beat somebody to a pulp. Going to make baseball illegal cause somebody might pick up a bat and hit somebody? Same principle.
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Informative)
That question is more complex. I am working on a rocket - similar issue arise. ITAR is the governing regulation, and the state department decides what ITAR means. And they are not logical about it.
I want to develop human rocket transports - but anything that goes into space is automatically a weapon, according to the state department. That means that if I talk to a non-US citizen about my improvements to rockets, I go to jail - let alone hiring or working with a non-US citizen.
UAVs seem very likely to fall under ITAR, because the state department will almost certainly say so. Ignorance of the law does not free you from the consequences of it, so I would tread carefully. One of the biggest problems with ITAR is that it is difficult to know exactly what it makes illegal - and so you end up having to consult lawyers every time you want to do anything involving foriengers. Very annoying, and very expensive! But it does lock in big profits for government contractors, of course... (You did know that they get reimbursed for all legal expenses, right?)
My dream is that knowing this will so enrage the Slashdot community that everyone will call their senator and tell them to force the state department to make the ITAR list less inclusive, and only include things that have weaponry as a primary purpose - and get congress to force state to change.
I'd also like a pony...
Parent
"Give the" a break... (Score:3, Interesting)
They really thought that "security through obscurity" was a viable option.
What a crock.
Eventually they were FORCED to see the light... but the problem is, everybody else saw the light right away... not after many years of argument and litigation.
Rathe
Regulatory Bodies (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand the problem. In the US we have multiple branches of government. The laws are written by one branch, and enforced by another. Of course, every person in the government has their own political agenda. This means that when an agency is looking at enforcing a law, they don't ask "what did the writers of this law intend" instead they ask "how can this law be used t
Re:Give the (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard that the best way around it is to patent it. A Patent counts as publishing it, which means that you can then talk about it. If you had published it yourself, they would consider that an ITAR violation - but if the PTO publishes it, you are off the hook.
The most annoying and inane rules anywhere. Seriously, call your senator!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give the (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't bite the propaganda of AIPAC or Dick Cheney! Israel is the nuclear armed agressor in the Middle East.
Huh? Aggressor? Last I checked, it wasn't Israel who was swearing to wipe out other countries, nor do they send suicide bombers to blow up buses of children. Israel is certainly not squeaky clean, but having enemies around you screaming for your destruction tends to make a country trigger happy. The ledger of atrocities is about 10 (if not 100) to 1 in favor of Israel.
Persian culture, by way of contrast, produced the world's first assertion and declaration of Human Rights, and is responsible for the foundation of modern mathematics.
Those civilizations are long dead -- unfortunately for the people of the middle east.
Parent
Re:Modded as troll - nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry that your facts are unpopular here...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You ever read failed states or hegemony or survival by noam chomsky?
Not to get into a debate on Chomsky, but he suffers from two major logic flaws: Proof by selective evidence, and he presupposes his conclusions (e.g., Given problem A, the conclusion will be that the U.S. holds the vast majority of blame).
No doubt he's a bright guy, but he has some huge blinders when it comes to politics. Unfortunately, his anger overwhelms his rationality.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Their Marx worship was just as much a religion as christianity, islam, mormonism, hinduism, etc. are. If it quacks like a duck and all that. Of course their propaganda denied that, but that was just their way of saying that there is only One True religion.
Your argument does nothing to disprove the original premise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
The Native Americans are allowed to become full American citizens. Palestinians are denied citizenship by Israel. Native Americans are offered economic autonomy, ie casinos and tax-free shopping, while Palestinians are suffering while Israel closes the borders and blocks commerce and electricity.
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
While I somewhat agree with that sentiment, we need to recognize that Iran isn't exactly the same Persia that we know and love. A lot has changed over the years. Persia finally succumbed to Islam; around 90% of Iranians follow the various Islamic faiths, and there are very few Zoroastrians hanging around. Sure, ethnically, the people are mostly the same as they were during the Empire years, but to say that culture is still pervasive? I don't know about that. Also, you can't berate people who follow the other Abrahamic religions, and then praise a modern country filled with people who also follow an (in my eye) equally stupid, but somewhat different Abrahamic religion. What sense does that make?
I've no doubt that the Iranian people are generally, and individually, great people; still, they're under the influence of assholes. It's no different than the US. Their government lies, our government lies, their leader has a screw loose, our leader has to have a screw loose-and unfortunately he has control over the bombs. Israel is the same way. It would be nice, however, if Ahmadinejad didn't periodically call for the elimination of Israel. Instead of defusing the situation, all they do is throw another stick of dynamite on the pile, and it doesn't further their cause in the international arena.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Persian culture, by way of contrast, produced the world's first assertion and declaration of Human Rights, and is responsible for the foundation of modern mathematics.
To which I say, "So what?" To cherry pick anecdotes from distant history adds nothing to this discussion, or really any discussion of a current modern regime. Are we supposed to pretend that since Persia, which is now Iran, came up with a human rights declaration a few thousand years ago, that means everything in hunkie dorie today? Of course not! It's completely irrelevant. It's like saying that since the Romans, which are now the Italians, popularized killing for entertainment, that the Italians su
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
Right - like the war in 1948 where Arabs were massacred or ethnic-cleansed out of their villages... that wasn't aggressive. And nor was the unilateral "preemptive" strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility. Oh, and lets not forget the unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty (how many Americans were killed in the "accidental" attack that lasted several hours?). Oh, and the invasions into Lebanon... how many times now? Nope, no aggression there.
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
You never hear anyone who speaks loudly condemn both sides for their ethical failures over the years. Why does everyone have to declare one side or the other innocent of all crimes?
Why don't we just look at the facts: Israel exists in a sea of Arab countries, some of whom consistently announce their intention to wipe them from the face of the Earth. This tense climate has made both sides afraid, and people who are afraid make bad decisions. Because of these bad decisions, the Muslims in Palestine have become more marginalized and more radicalized. The Israelis have become more aggressive.
This does not exempt either side from culpability, and it also does not make either side the clear moral victor.
The only way peace will be accomplished in the Middle East is if both sides learn to move past their grievances and realize that the past has no rational relationship to how they should proceed in the future. The past is all sunken cost. Both sides need to say to themselves: How do we prevent further death?
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
You never hear anyone who speaks loudly condemn both sides for their ethical failures over the years.
Wrong. Lots of people do. But those who do are despised by BOTH the sides (instead of just one of the sides) so they get much less media coverage. SO it ends up that anybody that talks against Israel's landgrabbing is labelled antisemitic (which is ridiculous if not else because the Palestinians are as much semitic as the Israeli, and actually often more semitic because most of Israeli are Jew but with lots of caucasic blood in their veins, so even from a purely racist point of view the label doesn't even make sense), and anybody that talks against the Palestinians terrorism acts is labeled as 'sold-out to the Israelf-US capitalistic landgrabbing agenda' or whatever.
Also, the main problem is that people keep talking about culpability instead of thinkin in terms of find a solution. This is exactly the same reason why most vendettas go on for centuries. (Plus, if we have to talk about culpability in the Palestine case I would go for the UN, which almost literely threw the Jew colonists to the lions, by supporting the creation of the State of Israel despite the clear and loud voices against it from the neighbouring nations. And please nobody mention the Belford declaration, that was before WWII and the promise to wipe Israel out of the face of Earth if it got founded was declared right after WWII, and before the foundation of the State. As for the right of a nation to have a State, that goes for lots of persecuted nations around the world, but nobody gives a shit about them so that's quite obviously not enough of a reason.)
So the solution has to rely on a current analysis of the situation, and the current analysis is that Israel is still landgrabbing, using the settlers (or squatters, depending on the point of view) outside of its borders as an excuse to extend its control over Palestine. Until they dismantle those settlements (that serve no purpose but landgrabbing) and fully retreat within the UN-declared borders they simply have no right to complain about the Palestinian terrorism. Likewise, Palestine should officially and once for all acknolwedge the State of Israel (within the UN-declared borders) and cease all hostile activity against Israel.
Of course, it's not something that I foresee happening anytime soon.
Parent
Re:Give the (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a load of bullshit. I'm not a Muslim (well technically I am, but only by the definition used in the Quran, not by the definition used in this conversation), but I have read the Quran and the quotes you provide are taken woefully out of context. The Quran is a philosophical and enlightening book and if you pay careful attention to the context, not violent either.
The fanatical lunatics who terrorise civilians and who drag the Prophet's Name, Peace be upon Him (although he probably ends up rolling in his grave every time they defile His name with their acts), through mud at every chance they get are no more faithful Muslims than the Spanish Inquisition were loving Christians.
Feel free not to take my word for it, but rather than visiting some anti-<insert religion here> site, go to the source and read their holy scriptures with an open mind. Also do not forget to bear in mind the time and place they were revealed, that help explain some of the more interesting laws.
As far as translations of the Quran go, I've been given to understand that George Sale's translation is very good.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is unbelievable propaganda to equate Iran to Nazi Germany. Israeli disinfo and psyops (MEMRI) [guardian.co.uk] deliberately mis-translate stories, and the lapdog media in the US and UK eat it up.
Here is the country, and the people [flickr.com], that you smear as "enemy".
Re:The Answer is Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with that statement is that the rulers of Iran:
1) Have said that they want nuclear weapons, and are actively pursuing nuclear technology
2) Have said that they want to wipe Isreal from the map
3) Seem to be spreading fear through their military and covert actions
While that does not make me hate Iranians or anything, that may lead to the US being forced to intervene no matter how we judge the rest of them - which would certainly