CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
theregister.co.uk
CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#2You really can't tell a lot from this article. It all comes down to what this piece of software does. A faulty component in the UAV doesn't necessarily mean that the weapon lands off target.
They definitely aren't modifying the guidance system on the weapon - those weapons are not built by the CIA. It sounds like this piece of software helps them correlate coordinates for targeting from one computer system to another. That may be bad, it may not.
(Also, in my experience the vetting of designs is pretty rigorous, but I work on the mechanical side and our customer is DOD not CIA so your results may vary.)
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#3> "They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work"
Let's see, we assassinate people without any trial, in a country we are not even at war with, and the obvious problem is that the software is a little buggy.
What is "buggy" here is the whole assassination system. When Bush wanted to dispatch special ops around the world to assassinate "terrorists", everyone was up and arms about it, When Obama does the same thing using drones, nobody seems to care, and the problem is a couple of bugs in the software.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#4> "They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work" Let's see, we assassinate people without any trial, in a country we are not even at war with, and the obvious problem is that the software is a little buggy. What is "buggy" here is the whole assassination system. When Bush wanted to dispatch special ops around the world to assassinate "terrorists", everyone was up and arms about it, When Obama does the…
The linguistics of the term "assassination" here is interesting.
In the old days, we'd just bomb whatever place we thought the bad guys were hiding, and anti-war types complained about the civilian casualties.
So we got better and better at avoiding civilian casualties, and now we can pick off the specific targets we know we want. But then anti-war types call it "assassination" and it actually winds up sounding even worse.
Of course when we do actually capture them instead of killing them, anti-war types will complain about the prisons we hold them in. Put 'em in a military prison and it's inhumane, put 'em in a civilian prison and that's inhumane too. As soon as we get around to trying them, they'll mount a legal challenge that the terms of the trial are unlawful, causing the trial to be abandoned while we think up a new legal framework under which to try them... and then they'll complain we're holding them for so long without a trial.
What I'm trying to say is that instead of complaining about the targeted killing of specific bad guys in foreign countries that we're not at war with, perhaps you should be grateful that we're not declaring war on the country just so we can bomb the crap out of it.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#5> "They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work" Let's see, we assassinate people without any trial, in a country we are not even at war with, and the obvious problem is that the software is a little buggy. What is "buggy" here is the whole assassination system. When Bush wanted to dispatch special ops around the world to assassinate "terrorists", everyone was up and arms about it, When Obama does the…
There was a great piece whose identifying information I'm blanking on that explained how we stumbled into drone warfare. Basically, we tried doing snatch & grabs with commando teams for a while, and that kept generating one negative externality we weren't willing to tolerate. Illegal acts? No. Media pressure? No. Collateral damage? No. Diplomatic reprecussions? No. Prisoners.
Prisoners are a real handful. What are our options? Let them go? Well, no gain there. Put a bullet in the back of their head? Americans won't go for it. Try them in a civilian court? You get to expose sources & methods, they might walk anyhow (evidence tends to be testimony of equally unsavory characters plus something classified to the nth degree and not worth burning on Mook #473), and the successful outcome is they go plot their next terrorist act from a federal penitentiary. Try them in military court? All the fun of a civilian court, and the New York Times editorial board will make it sound like you took the bullet option anyhow.
You know what has never once happened as a result of a Predator drone strike? A live prisoner in US custody.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#6> "They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work" Let's see, we assassinate people without any trial, in a country we are not even at war with, and the obvious problem is that the software is a little buggy. What is "buggy" here is the whole assassination system. When Bush wanted to dispatch special ops around the world to assassinate "terrorists", everyone was up and arms about it, When Obama does the…
This whole conversation is way off-topic but the operations happen with the partnership of the Pakistani government (so the bit about "...in a country we're not at war with" is irrelevant) against military targets who are not fighting under any nation's flag.
The days of two armies lining up at opposite ends of a battle-field are gone.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#7You really can't tell a lot from this article. It all comes down to what this piece of software does. A faulty component in the UAV doesn't necessarily mean that the weapon lands off target. They definitely aren't modifying the guidance system on the weapon - those weapons are not built by the CIA. It sounds like this piece of software helps them correlate coordinates for targeting from one computer system to another…
> A faulty component in the UAV doesn't necessarily mean that the weapon lands off target.
Someone on reddit pointed out that even if it does, it doesn't matter. If the kill radius is 20 yards, and the bugs mean that it has an error of up to 5 yards... that's not really significant.
edit: Unless, of course, you happen to be bombing something next to an elementary school, a mosque, or a hospital.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#8You really can't tell a lot from this article. It all comes down to what this piece of software does. A faulty component in the UAV doesn't necessarily mean that the weapon lands off target. They definitely aren't modifying the guidance system on the weapon - those weapons are not built by the CIA. It sounds like this piece of software helps them correlate coordinates for targeting from one computer system to another…
> A faulty component in the UAV doesn't necessarily mean that the weapon lands off target. Someone on reddit pointed out that even if it does, it doesn't matter. If the kill radius is 20 yards, and the bugs mean that it has an error of up to 5 yards... that's not really significant. edit: Unless, of course, you happen to be bombing something next to an elementary school, a mosque, or a hospital.
I would argue that any time accuracy (or any feature) is expected, then a lack of said feature does matter. You never know when someone somewhere could be relying on the fact that they can get within 5 yards.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#9The CIA does not seem to be having very good press karma with their drones, if I recall there was a few issues with data stream encryption, and software that allowed hostiles to intercept and view UAV downlinks in the battle field. Perhaps its just tempting to write a story about such a high profile target, but it seems partly like some corner cutting is going on on the CIA's end.
Re: CIA used 'illegal, inaccurate code to target kill drones'
#10> "They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work" Let's see, we assassinate people without any trial, in a country we are not even at war with, and the obvious problem is that the software is a little buggy. What is "buggy" here is the whole assassination system. When Bush wanted to dispatch special ops around the world to assassinate "terrorists", everyone was up and arms about it, When Obama does the…
There was a great piece whose identifying information I'm blanking on that explained how we stumbled into drone warfare. Basically, we tried doing snatch & grabs with commando teams for a while, and that kept generating one negative externality we weren't willing to tolerate. Illegal acts? No. Media pressure? No. Collateral damage? No. Diplomatic reprecussions? No. Prisoners. Prisoners are a real handful. What are ou…
Interesting anecdote: up until WWII or so, American commanders had little problem dealing with enemy noncombatants on the battlefield. There was a brief trial followed by an execution.
Over time, the whole trial and such got to be counter-productive for the military, all that publicity and such. Warfare became much more a PR game. So commanders started emphasizing killing over capturing.
This trend has nothing to do with the war on terror. Eisenhower back in WWII sent out memos to his commanders saying he didn't want to see a lot of snipers being captured. The implications were pretty clear. Drone warfare is just the continuation of this larger trend.