Military Drones Contract Keylogger Virus

[Treblaine]

in all srsness, if it has a computer operating system it can be hacked no questions asked (there are vulnerabilities inherent in all pieces of software. not all vulnerabilities can be covered by the programmer as some may require a very rare and very specific set of parameters to come together at the same time, [the same way we have crazy glitches on some pc games on one computer and not on others]

i wonder how this got into their system as surely any computer system that kills people must be absolutely bullet proof with regards to what can be installed to it, accessed from it and executed from it etc etc.

Not just computers PEOPLE can be hacked as well.

In a round about way.

The plot of Dr Strangelove was all about B52 bomber crews being "hacked" by basically being tricked into believing that there was a nuclear war and their mission was to deliver a massive counter attack. Computers are hacked the same way, they are given a very limited order that they think is genuine and must be followed.

 

[Sucal]

Snip

I find it curious that you claim using UAV's is immoral. Especially claiming it will increase the number of dead on the enemies side. What you seem to be missing is the use of AUAV's as a precision weapon. If you send a squad of troopers in to attack, then both sides are going to take massive casualties. If you send a UAV in to attack, then you can selectively target only the enemy leadership, while avoiding any possible loss of life to those who are only defending their people/countries.

Personally I want the UAV technology to spread all around the world, so that all sides can have it. Namely because unlike with a squad of soldiers, a UAV doesn't target the fighters, instead it can be a precision instrument that targets the leadership instead. So that while politicians might stay at home and order those on the front lines to fight without them, a UAV is a far more personal risk.

While people are more then willing to risk other peoples lives, the use of UAV's means the normally hidden leadership have to question whether or not they want to risk their own life. Once you remove the head, the rest of the body will fall. No more killing hundreds of soldiers just to capture the leadership and sentence them to jail time, as if they were somehow worth more then their men.

 

[John the Gamer]

Yay for skynet! Awww... Too soon?

I'm betting they'll blame this "virus" for all the civilians they've bombed with those things. 'Collateral damage? - Wasn't us! It was the Virus!'

EDIT: Friggin' Ninja'd on the skynet thing. Go figure.

It's a keylogger. It can't be used to control the drones it just means that whoever put it in will be able to tell what the drones are being used for.

I know, but the military will be able to shove all responsibility it's way somehow.

 

[harvz]

you know, if it keeps coming back, that means that the drones probably aren't the only things on the military's setup that has the key logger...or they want their free space ship cursor, it's just so annoying that they keep or wiping the system and each time they have to download it again.

 

[oliver.begg]

question? who the fuck said that war was meant to be "fair" its about dicking the opposition as much as possible while suffering the least amount of causalities/damage as possible.

Don't die for your country, make the enemy die for there's. (perferable by shoting them from behind, silently without anyone knowing)

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

Hopefully this means that we won't totally turn the air force into the drone force. It would be kind of boring to watch a war movie and just have people sitting at computer screens. Don't get me wrong I love drones I just don't want them totally eliminating fighter pilots and such.

Edit: also I bet you $100 that China is behind this.

You sir have yourself a bet!!

So does this mean that whoever installed the virus can see everything the military can see??

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

Err, because they are misguided extremist! Why else?

These extremists are enemies of any human who disagrees with their delusions (which is most humans including most Muslims). These extremists endorse and practice premeditated murder of children who are taught in any school other than one that teaches their oppressive delusions. They are oppressors of humanity. If they get their way, humans suffer. They will suffer for generations.

Er, that's sorta assuming that everyone targeted by UAVs is an extremist, and not just someone who has decided to defend their homeland against what they see as a foreign invader.

Determining whom is which, is of course, more or less impossible and as it happens, unnecessary. Like you say, they are the enemy, taking up arms for any reason comes with the knowledge that you might be targeted by something or other, though presumably it'd be a great comfort to them to be killed in an airstrike involving piloted warplanes, rather than remote control ones.

 

[Aeshi]

<Insert joke about "Military "Intelligence"" here>

 

[xEightBitPlayerx]

I don't see how this could end badly at all.

 

[RadiusXd]

Considering that the use of unmanned Military Vehichles is actually a war crime, we may as well just sit back and watch these drones get slowly destroyed by viruses. I, for one, welcome the idea of every bloody unmanned vehicle getting taken down by a lowly virus. It'd be funny, and it'd be karmic retribution.

According to what internationally ratified law is an Unmanned Aircraft illegal for use in war or anywhere else?

if you mean under the Hague Convention well that bans the deployment of bombs from ALL AIRCRAFT! And that agreement has been de-facto void since the 1910's.

And getting beyond any legal technicalities, what is so barbaric about using a remotely operated aircraft to deliver munitions with pinpoint accuracy, compared to planting roadside bombs? Or simply shooting at an enemy combatant with a rifle?

I understand why using poison gas is a war-crime, as it is indiscriminately applied over a wide area where it does not directly target enemy combatants and can lead to escalation where the danger of mass use against civilians is high.

But considering the agreed intentions of war, what is the problem with remotely piloted aircraft for attack?

Because using remotely piloted aircaft for an attack against living targets removes the factor of possible loss of life from one side of the conflict. Essentially, this means that one side of the conflict no longer has to worry about potential deaths while killing the enemy, when one of these things can be flown over an immense distance via remote operator to take out the enemy.

This is totally immoral. Putting one side at risk while keeping the other out of combat entirely using advanced tech that only one side has access to removes most of the need for due consideration of whether or not a battle, or even a war, should be started because suddenly the possibility of death is no longer there. I don't care how amoral the enemy is, fighting them without even putting a human in the battlefield is just plain wrong.

When the hell did any of the rules of war necessitate that you HAVE to put yourself in harms way in order to deal a blow to the enemy?

Snipers, Artillery, roadside bombs, tanks, machine guns with interlocking fields of fire, every military strategy is about dealing the maximum damage to the enemy with the minimum risk to yourself.

Are you suggesting that if there was some way that all of our soldiers could be made 100% bullet and Bomb proof you would oppose that?

You would oppose a method that would prevent any more of your country's soldiers returning home in a coffin? Would you oppose it SIMPLY because our soldiers MUST be in harms way in order to conduct the business of war? It may be a tactical necessity to put them in harms way to achieve an objective, but it is no moral necessity.

This is totally immoral.

No, this is totally unfair, but that's what war is. You think roadside bombs are fair? You think "banning" them is any kind of solution?

If you think "war" is everyone dressing in bright colours, lining up in front of each other in an orderly fashion and taking turns to shoot at each other, that is not the "most moral" of war. That is a careless waste of life. Arbritrarily putting your soldiers in harms way just to "make it fair" utterly betrays the purpose of war.

Do not mistake the unavoidably of soldiers dying in combat with their necessity that they MUST die as a matter of morality.

War is about winning!

The rules of war forbid things that do not serve victory but are merely vindictive. Like mistreating prisoners. It is actually in the army's benefit to offer to treat enemy prisoners with decency as if there is the threat of summary execution or torture then they will be likely to surrender, but will never surrender, will fight to the very end far beyond the point of defending their objectives if its the only way to avoid a terrible fate.

For christ's sake, I wasn't talking about what I think war is actually like, I was just trying to explain my view on the morality of it all.

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

because they are the enemy, you said it yourself. its not like we have souls, these are complex groupings of neurons arranged in a way that means the person is going to try killing everyone who doesn't agree with his views because an imaginary friend of his promised a stay at a resort after he dies.
they want to kill us. fuck em.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Forget mass sentience, the real sci-fi horror story comes from the idea of a bored scriptkid taking control of a flying machine armed with heat-seeking missiles and a radar signature that borders on invisibility.

Don't even put the idea in their heads. The last thing we need is some idiot playing with something that could really hurt someone.

Why am I thinking of an episode of American Dad right now?

 

[Strazdas]

And this is why a hacker is more dangerous than an army.
also, why not just format the whole drones memory, that would surely kill the virus. it cant be a hardware virus, unless the drone had a "dissapeared for an hour" thing and even then you could find it.

 

[Treblaine]

Also, can you explain why our own troops dying is more of a blow to the human race than one of the enemy dying? what entitles us to disregard the effect of the death of a misguided extremist, but to regard the death of one of our own as a far greater tragedy?

Err, because they are misguided extremist! Why else?

These extremists are enemies of any human who disagrees with their delusions (which is most humans including most Muslims). These extremists endorse and practice premeditated murder of children who are taught in any school other than one that teaches their oppressive delusions. They are oppressors of humanity. If they get their way, humans suffer. They will suffer for generations.

Er, that's sorta assuming that everyone targeted by UAVs is an extremist, and not just someone who has decided to defend their homeland against what they see as a foreign invader.

Determining whom is which, is of course, more or less impossible and as it happens, unnecessary. Like you say, they are the enemy, taking up arms for any reason comes with the knowledge that you might be targeted by something or other, though presumably it'd be a great comfort to them to be killed in an airstrike involving piloted warplanes, rather than remote control ones.

Yes, that's a very reasonable assumption that they are targeting extremists. Do you think Barack Obama is fucking around just wasting missiles targeting tangential moderate members likely to switch sides? No. They are working their way down the food chain.

And if you are suggesting these organisations are of "freedom fighters" do you really think it is necessary to murder schoolchildren to "defend their homeland". Because that is the unapologetic Taliban strategy.

The only thing they are "defending their homeland" from is from justice, freedom and decency for their people. Do not have any delusions that these monsters hiding in the mountain are some warriors resisting invasion, they have virtually no popular support the little popular support they has is out of fear from the threat of reprisals and from fools who have been seduced by the death cults of suicide attacks for an eternity of hedonism.

It's an utterly spurious argument that "some might be reasonably defending their land from invasion".

They forfeit that right from their horrific actions. It's like objecting to the Invasion of Germany in 1945 because "some of them are just protecting the Fatherland!"

 

[Treblaine]

God-damn, none of what you inferred from my statement represents my belief.

Sorry, maybe you should articulate yourself better, or clarify your statements. Things like:

"I just don't think that the beliefs they fight for make them evil."

Sorry, but Taliban beliefs are of murder and oppression, justified by selfish desire for a hedonistic afterlife. I don't see how being an agency to those beliefs isn't evil to at least some significant extent.

"it's just a shame we need to do it with bullets."

Well how else would you try to deal with a death cult other than by bullets. I just see this as leading down the path to betrayal of our commitments, that it is somehow too much to bear to even vanquish these agents of suffering.

You say you aren't above this but it only makes sense to say both a Taliban death and British Soldier's death if you remove all external factors and intentions, and JUST see them as deaths of human beings. But Humans without morals, without wills, without purpose not intent.

So please, explain yourself, because you seem to want to say one thing then say another.

 

[Rarhnor]

snip

You believe war becomes pointless, when you remove the factor that it is a human at the frontline. The fact that it is a person that is willing to stand up for what he/she believes in (belief here being in the context of morals and ideals in general, and not religion exclusively, in case you're getting paranoid from reading this). I am behind you on that.
I am also with you on the "yay! an enemy died!" thing. There is no reason for me to high five a countryman for killing someone that wanted to kill me, because then we are all but a reflection of the "enemy" we are fighting. The "enemy" other people arguing against you want dead. Such ignorance.
It's the ideals and beliefs that we represent on the front line that makes war relevant. Distancing ourselves from the human element in wars, will distance ourselves from the ideals and the things we fight for.
The reason we wage war, are in belief and reason of our own moral context. Things that drones and robots do not represent.

I'm just throwing it out there y'know. Showing you that there's someone out there that understand what you're saying.

For anyone who DOESN'T understand this concept: Play the 'Armored Core' series. Have a nice day.

 

[Scow2]

because they are the enemy, you said it yourself. its not like we have souls, these are complex groupings of neurons arranged in a way that means the person is going to try killing everyone who doesn't agree with his views because an imaginary friend of his promised a stay at a resort after he dies.
they want to kill us. fuck em.

So, according to you, we pretty much can't do anything about any of this, because we're all just numbers reacting to external stimuli that nobody has any control over, and free will is merely an illusion caused by ignorance of the complex chemical and quantum interactions that give an end result of such concepts as "Thought" and "Self Awareness".

That "Friend" of our Enemy is just as imaginary as Freedom, and every other concept out there worth fighting for (Yes, even "Survival").

Also... As an "Imperial" force, the U.S. is not at "War" in a traditional sense. Yes, our enemies are fighting a War against us, but we are neutralizing Threats to Stability and Order, for which UAV are very well-suited for.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

it's that talented hackers and virus writers

Not even.

A lot of the hacks done by lulzsec and anon on things like FBI associates and such were achieved with very simple techinques that aren't even hacking, like SQL injections.

 

[aashell13]

If i had to guess, I'd say a foreign intelligence agency trying to analyze our operational capability. I have a really hard time believing that this thing is "benign". Even if it doesn't interfere with functionality, it could still give an enemy insight into our abilities and protocols which is a tremendous vulnerability.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Bit OT, but I've always thought it a little amusing that a lot of the Armies tech. is controlled via Xbox 360 controllers.
I saw a documentary on Afghanistan recently and the UAV pilots were flying them using a 360 controller. So I'm guessing there has to be a fair bit of equipment with the US Army that has had 360 controller drivers coded for them.

(random pics)

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes, that's a very reasonable assumption that they are targeting extremists. Do you think Barack Obama is fucking around just wasting missiles targeting tangential moderate members likely to switch sides? No. They are working their way down the food chain.

Firstly, the President of the USA does not manage day to day operations in Afghanistan.

Secondly, you know that UAVs are used for (amongst other things) close air support? Now, yes, there are plenty of reasons why an Army/Marine/Allied/whomever commander might find air power unavailable, "The people shooting at you don't look extremist enough" is unlikely to crop up all that much.

And if you are suggesting these organisations are of "freedom fighters" do you really think it is necessary to murder schoolchildren to "defend their homeland". Because that is the unapologetic Taliban strategy.

Right, so everyone fighting against the ISAF must, by virtue of that fact, support the murder of schoolkids?

The only thing they are "defending their homeland" from is from justice, freedom and decency for their people. Do not have any delusions that these monsters hiding in the mountain are some warriors resisting invasion, they have virtually no popular support the little popular support they has is out of fear from the threat of reprisals and from fools who have been seduced by the death cults of suicide attacks for an eternity of hedonism.

So, the only threat to the ISAF/people of Afghanistan is one homogenuous mass (who are somehow able to operate despite no popular support)? There aren't any petty warlords or tribal leaders out for themselves, either, or glorified criminal elements? It's just the Taliban and nobody else?