Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 10:12 AM
Number of posts: 58,228
Number of posts: 58,228
- 2015 (6)
- 2014 (2168)
- 2013 (2481)
- 2012 (486)
- 2011 (10)
- December (10)
- Older Archives
Mabus: F-35 Will Be ‘Last Manned Strike Fighter’ the Navy, Marines ‘Will Ever Buy or Fly’
By: Sam LaGrone
April 15, 2015 1:55 PM • Updated: April 15, 2015 3:56 PM
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be “almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly,” signaling key assumptions in the Navy’s aviation future as the service prepares to develop follow-ons to the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
“Unmanned systems, particularly autonomous ones, have to be the new normal in ever-increasing areas,” Mabus said.
For example, as good as it is, and as much as we need it and look forward to having it in the fleet for many years, the F-35 should be, and almost certainly will be, the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly.”
To address the emerging role unmanned weapon systems, Mabus announced a new deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems and a new Navy staff position — alongside warfare directorates like surface and air warfare — N-99.
The positions were created “so that all aspects of unmanned – in all domains – over, on and under the sea and coming from the sea to operate on land – will be coordinated and championed,” Mabus said.
If the F-35 is going to be “the last manned strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly” , why the fuck do we need to spend another $1 trillion dollars for this not-ready-for-prime-time POS:
a) has been on the drawing board for over 14 years
b) has triggered Nunn-McCurdy at least twice
c) has (very) short legs
d) is underpowered
e) needs a half-million dollar brain bucket (helmet)
f) adds nothing to the combat mix
g) and costs at least $300+ million
The US Navy has lost its way.
Navy, Newport News Seeking Ways to Cut Carrier Costs, Introduce More Competition
By: Megan Eckstein
April 15, 2015 4:09 PM
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. – Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said the Navy is making good progress learning lessons from first-in-class Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) aircraft carrier and lowering costs for the follow-on John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), but he said more innovative ideas might be needed to introduce competition and continue to cut out cost.
Asked during the service chiefs panel Monday at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space 2015 Exposition whether he was confident the aircraft carrier program could meet its congressionally mandated cost caps by identifying and implementing lessons learned, Greenert responded: “I am not personally so confident that I can declare here just based on lessons learned. But on the other hand, what I am confident of, because we’re seeing it, that we are learning lessons.”
“We are learning that you need detailed design before you should start construction because designing and constructing at the same time on such a huge project is inefficient at best. That you have to purchase, you have to have an efficient and effective way to purchase materials and define that as quickly as possible so that the buyer – which there are so many subvendors involved here – can get on with what they’re doing.”
Greenert said he meets regularly with Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley to discuss ways to not only meet the cost caps for Kennedy but also how to bring further innovation and cost-savings into the program.
The lessons learned:
a) accept an UNFINISHED aircraft carrier for $13 billion dollars to avoid ANOTHER Nunn-McCurdy 'ding' (another two years before it's done)
b) lay the keel on the next Ford-class aircraft carrier and see how much that one costs.
The Littoral Combat Ship is another Navy fuck up.
CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program:Background, Issues, and Options for Congress
Unit Procurement Cost Cap
LCS sea frames procured in FY2010 and subsequent years are subject to a unit procurement cost cap. The legislative history of the cost cap is as follows:
The cost cap was originally established by Section 124 of the FY2006 defense authorization act (H.R. 1815/P.L. 109-163 of January 6, 2006). Under this provision, the fifth and sixth ships in the class were to cost no more than $220 million each, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors.
The cost cap was amended by Section 125 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008). This provision amended the cost cap to $460 million per ship, with no adjustments for inflation, and applied the cap to all LCSs procured in FY2008 and subsequent years.
The cost cap was amended again by Section 122 of the FY2009 defense authorization act (S. 3001/P.L. 110-417 of October 14, 2008). This provision deferred the implementation of the cost cap by two years, applying it to all LCSs procured in FY2010 and subsequent years.
The cost cap was amended again by Section 121(c) and (d) of the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009). The provision adjusted the cost cap to $480 million per ship, excluded certain costs from being counted against the $480 million cap, included provisions for adjusting the $480 million figure over time to take inflation and other events into account, and permitted the Secretary of the Navy to waive (see below) the cost cap under certain conditions. The Navy states that after taking inflation into account, the $480 million figure equates, as of December 2010, to $538 million.
Section 121(d)(1) states that the Secretary of the Navy may waive the cost cap if:
(A) the Secretary provides supporting data and certifies in writing to the congressional defense
(i) the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of the vessel-
(I) is in the best interest of the United States; and
(II) is affordable, within the context of the annual naval vessel construction plan required by section 231 of title 10, United States Code; and
(ii) the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of at least one other vessel authorized by subsection (a) has been or is expected to be less than $480,000,000; and
(B) a period of not less than 30 days has expired following the date on which such certification and data are submitted to the congressional defense committees.
The first two Littoral Combat Ships cost around $1.5 billion. I can hardly wait to hear the next excuse why .....................
Posted by unhappycamper | Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:30 AM (0 replies)
‘Lone Wolf,’ ‘Self-Radicalized': Islamophobic Buzzwords never applied to White Terrorists
By Juan Cole | Feb. 12, 2015
Did a self-radicalized lone wolf white terrorist kill three young Muslim students in cold blood in Chapel Hill? It is a kind of a stupid question, but its stupidity is just more apparent when asked of someone with an English last name. What does self-radicalized or lone wolf even mean?
Craig Hicks constantly shared anti-Muslim and anti-Christian links on social media and proclaimed to believers, ““I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being — which your religion does with self-righteous gusto…” I think we may conclude that he didn’t like Muslims, and one of the victims told her father that before her death. While he may have been provoked to his rage by a parking incident and while he clearly is one egg short of an omelette, the “new atheist” discourse of believers as oppressive and coercive per se is part of his problem.
“Terrorism” has been racialized in the American press and law enforcement community, marked as having to do with Muslims but almost never used to refer to people of northern European background. A few years ago, when a police spokesman said that “We have concluded that event was not terrorism,” likely what he meant is that no Muslims were involved or that no cell or organization was.
Racializing dissent has an old genealogy in American politics. In the early twentieth century, Jewish-American immigrants were suspected of socialism and Italian-Americans of anarchism. In the Red Scare of 1917-1920, workers who joined labor actions were falsely accused of Communism and were targeted for mob violence, especially if they had “foreign names.” African-Americans who had come north to work in factories during the war, filling a domestic labor shortage, were likewise tagged as subversive. Somehow persons of English ancestry with names like Worthington — even if they were blue collar workers– were not assumed to be Communists or foreign agents or radicals. Russian-Americans were deported. In Illinois after the war, a mob attacked Italian-Americans and razed their homes.
Posted by unhappycamper | Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:23 AM (12 replies)
War Is the New Normal: Seven Deadly Reasons Why America’s Wars Persist
By contributors | Feb. 2, 2015
By William J. Astore | (Tomdispatch.com) –
1. The privatization of war: The U.S. military’s recourse to private contractors has strengthened the profit motive for war-making and prolonged wars as well. Unlike the citizen-soldiers of past eras, the mobilized warrior corporations of America’s new mercenary moment — the Halliburton/KBRs (nearly $40 billion in contracts for the Iraq War alone), the DynCorps ($4.1 billion to train 150,000 Iraqi police), and the Blackwater/Xe/Academis ($1.3 billion in Iraq, along with boatloads of controversy) — have no incentive to demobilize. Like most corporations, their business model is based on profit through growth, and growth is most rapid when wars and preparations for more of them are the favored options in Washington.
2. The embrace of the national security state by both major parties: Jimmy Carter was the last president to attempt to exercise any kind of control over the national security state. A former Navy nuclear engineer who had served under the demanding Admiral Hyman Rickover, Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber and fought for a U.S. foreign policy based on human rights. Widely pilloried for talking about nuclear war with his young daughter Amy, Carter was further attacked for being “weak” on defense. His defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980 inaugurated 12 years of dominance by Republican presidents that opened the financial floodgates for the Department of Defense. That taught Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council a lesson when it came to the wisdom of wrapping the national security state in a welcoming embrace, which they did, however uncomfortably. This expedient turn to the right by the Democrats in the Clinton years served as a temporary booster shot when it came to charges of being “soft” on defense — until Republicans upped the ante by going “all-in” on military crusades in the aftermath of 9/11.
3. “Support Our Troops” as a substitute for thought. You’ve seen them everywhere: “Support Our Troops” stickers. In fact, the “support” in that slogan generally means acquiescence when it comes to American-style war. The truth is that we’ve turned the all-volunteer military into something like a foreign legion, deploying it again and again to our distant battle zones and driving it into the ground in wars that amount to strategic folly. Instead of admitting their mistakes, America’s leaders have worked to obscure them by endlessly overpraising our “warriors” as so many universal heroes. This may salve our collective national conscience, but it’s a form of cheap grace that saves no lives — and wins no wars.
4. Fighting a redacted war. War, like the recent Senate torture report, is redacted in America. Its horrors and mistakes are suppressed, its patriotic whistleblowers punished, even as the American people are kept in a demobilized state. The act of going to war no longer represents the will of the people, as represented by formal Congressional declarations of war as the U.S. Constitution demands. Instead, in these years, Americans were told to go to Disney World (as George W. Bush suggested in the wake of 9/11) and keep shopping. They’re encouraged not to pay too much attention to war’s casualties and costs, especially when those costs involve foreigners with funny-sounding names (after all, they are, as American sniper Chris Kyle so indelicately put it in his book, just “savages”).
Posted by unhappycamper | Mon Feb 2, 2015, 05:59 AM (6 replies)
"Every mistake by Washington is a boon for future arms sales," writes Van Buren.
The United States Is Open for Business in Iraq
Thursday, 15 January 2015 13:15
By Peter Van Buren, TomDispatch | News Analysis
The current American war in Iraq is a struggle in search of a goal. It began in August as a humanitarian intervention, morphed into a campaign to protect Americans in-country, became a plan to defend the Kurds, followed by a full-on crusade to defeat the new Islamic State (IS, aka ISIS, aka ISIL), and then... well, something in Syria to be determined at a later date.
At the moment, Iraq War 3.0 simply drones on, part bombing campaign, part mission to train the collapsed army the U.S. military created for Iraq War 2.0, all amid a miasma of incoherent mainstream media coverage. American troops are tiptoeing closer to combat (assuming you don't count defensive operations, getting mortared, and flying ground attack helicopters as “combat”), even as they act like archaeologists of America’s warring past, exploring the ruins of abandoned U.S. bases. Meanwhile, Shia militias are using the conflict for the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis and Iran has become an ever-more significant player in Iraq's affairs. Key issues of the previous American occupation of the country -- corruption, representative government, oil revenue-sharing -- remain largely unresolved. The Kurds still keep “winning” against the militants of IS in the city of Kobani on the Turkish border without having “won.”
In the meantime, Washington’s rallying cry now seems to be: “Wait for the spring offensive!” In translation that means: wait for the Iraqi army to get enough newly American-trained and -armed troops into action to make a move on Mosul. That city is, of course, the country’s second largest and still ruled by the new “caliphate” proclaimed by Islamic State head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All in all, not exactly inspiring stuff.
You can't have victory if you have no idea where the finish line is. But there is one bright side to the situation. If you can't create Victory in Iraq for future VI Day parades, you can at least make a profit from the disintegrating situation there.
Posted by unhappycamper | Sun Jan 18, 2015, 06:54 AM (2 replies)
An Elephant (the US) in a China Closet (the world)
OpEdNews Op Eds 1/5/2015 at 12:25:45
An Elephant (the US) in a China Closet (the world)
By Joseph Clifford
Imagine unleashing an elephant in a large room filled with precious antiquities collected from around the world over the millennia. The elephant would destroy, smash, and break, priceless artifacts that had survived thousands of years. Now imagine the elephant as the United States as it conducts its foreign policy around the world. We have smashed, broken and destroyed, ancient civilizations that had survived for thousands of years. We have destroyed infrastructure, health care systems, and entire cultures, on our rampage around the world. Iraq, known for thousands of years as the "cradle of civilization" has been smashed to pieces, its economy destroyed, the rule of law is gone, and over a million people have died since the elephant began its stampede in Iraq. We are the elephant, and we did this to the birthplace of civilization. We reduced it to its present state of 50,000 deaths in 2014 because the elephant unleased the worst weapon possible; sectarian hatred, in a formerly stable country. Even the name and the boundaries of the former Iraq have been wiped from the maps of the world forever. Iraq as a nation is gone and in its place is a lawless, death filled, area of a now primitive society.
But the elephant is on a rampage and the he continues to smash other cultures and civilizations in that area of the world. Libya was "helped" by the elephant and Libya is now a failed state characterized by tribal warfare and a completely non functioning government. The elephant spent 2 billion dollars bombing Libya for 90 consecutive days, pretending to "help" the people of Libya. Government has all but disappeared, and rival tribal chieftains kill for control. The elephant did this to Libya. Mainstream media no longer covers Libya, but rest assured it is almost as bad as Iraq, and will only get worse as the rule of law continues to erode with no one able to restore a semblance of order. The French Defense Minister is now saying Libya is becoming a "terrorist sanctuary" and the weapons that flooded Libya are being sent to other nearby countries to be used in spreading more death. Libya, like Iraq has been destroyed, smashed, and broken by the rogue elephant, and Libya just like Iraq is no longer a country. Its boundaries will disappear in the next few years as the anarchy continues.
Now the elephant is rampaging through Syria, once again tearing that society apart and breaking all in its path. The rogue elephant decided to "help" Syria by getting rid of a leader the elephant did not like, and in an effort to rid Syria of the leader we don't like, we have escalated an already brutal civil war by flooding the country with weapons of death, and by bombing whomever we feel should be bombed. An estimated 76,000 deaths have occurred in 2014, and possibly millions have been displaced. The US bombing has slowed as of late because the elephant has run out of targets, but that won't stop the elephant for long. He will turn around and smash his way through already destroyed areas to insure total devastation. Syria in the next few years will disappear as a nation, and the same kind of lawlessness society will emerge where the rule of the jungle is in effect, yet another country completely destroyed by the elephant will be reduced to anarchy, death, and despair.
Under the guise of "helping", the elephant has completely destroyed Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and the elephant is not done his work. Two ambitious targets are still in the room with the rogue elephant. Already the elephant has the scent of Iran and Russia, and knows the road to Iran must go through Damascus which explains why Syria is being destroyed. Syria leads to Iran. Once Tehran is destroyed, the elephant can turn his attention to the biggest prize, Russia. The rogue elephant might just have met its match in the taking on Russia, for she too is a large elephant, and everything in the arena will be destroyed in the clash. Wake up folks. US foreign policy has been co opted by a group of sub humans who thrive on anarchy and destruction. If you believe the architects of foreign policy have just made ignorant mistakes your wrong. No one could be this stupid; this is all by design. If you don't make an effort to contain the rogue elephant you're going to be trampled in the great fight to come.
Posted by unhappycamper | Tue Jan 6, 2015, 08:10 AM (1 replies)
ABC News | —
“ABC News’ Bob Woodruff travels the country examining new efforts end homelessness among US veterans.”
Posted by unhappycamper | Tue Jan 6, 2015, 07:10 AM (12 replies)
Let's start with the basics: where does military money come from?
The answer is the discretionary budget.
What is the military doing that eats up 57% of all discretionary spending in the United States? This artist's concept illustrates where the bucks go in the US Navy:
An artist concept of USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and both variants of the Littoral Combat Ship using the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP). Lockheed Martin image
First up: the USS Gerald R Ford
The USS Gerald R Ford is the first of a new class of aircraft carriers. The USS Gerald R Ford is the first Naval warship I can recall being delivered UNFINISHED. Yup, UNFINISHED.
Navy Aircraft Unfinished For Launch, Will Require A Billion Dollars More
9:29 PM 11/21/2014
A government watchdog report sheds light on the disaster that is the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Not only will the Navy carrier be incomplete at launch date, but completing construction will cost upwards of $998 million dollars.
The aircraft carrier stands at only 80 percent complete, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which began the study at the behest of a Senate report. Not only have costs risen 20 percent since 2006, but the launch has been delayed a year. It was supposed to be cleared for a September 2015 date, but now has been pushed back to March 2016. Even still, some of the most important features of the carrier intended to separate it from older models will remain dormant while on display. Current total costs are estimated at $12.9 billion dollars.
“With the shipbuilder embarking on one of the most complex phases of construction with the greatest likelihood for cost growth, cost increases beyond the current $12.9 billion cost cap appear likely,” the watchdog agency said. Delayed construction, the Navy argues, is an effort to avoid going over the cost cap. Satellite communication will have to wait. Defects will be present, too, until almost a billion dollars more is spent to correct the errors.
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain wasn’t buying the Navy’s statement on cost overruns.
Next up: Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
The Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers (DDGs) is the United States Navy's first class of destroyer built around the Aegis Combat System and the SPY-1D multi-function phased array radar. The class is named for Admiral Arleigh Burke, the most famous American destroyer officer of World War II, and later Chief of Naval Operations. The class leader, USS Arleigh Burke, was commissioned during Admiral Burke's lifetime.
They were designed as multi-role destroyers to fit the AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) role with their powerful Aegis radar and anti-aircraft missiles; ASW (Anti-submarine warfare) role, with their towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, and ASW helicopter; ASUW (Anti-surface warfare) role with their Harpoon missile launcher; and strategic land strike role with their Tomahawk missiles. Some versions of the class no longer have the towed sonar, or Harpoon missile launcher. Their hull and superstructure were designed to have a reduced radar cross section The first ship of the class was commissioned on 4 July 1991. With the decommissioning of the last Spruance-class destroyer, Cushing, on 21 September 2005, the Arleigh Burke–class ships became the U.S. Navy's only active destroyers; the class has the longest production run for any postwar U.S. Navy surface combatant. Besides the 62 vessels of this class (comprising 21 of Flight I, 7 of Flight II and 34 of Flight IIA) in service by 2013, up to a further 42 (of Flight III) have been envisaged.
With an overall length of 505 feet (154 m) to 509 feet (155 m), displacement ranging from 8,315 to 9,200 tons, and weaponry including over 90 missiles, the Arleigh Burke–class ships are larger and more heavily armed than most previous ships classified as guided missile cruisers.
It's big, it's bad, and it costs $2 billion dollars.
Next up: Zumwalt-class destroyers.
USS Zumwalt (DDG-1000)
See also: Zumwalt-class destroyer § History
Zumwalt 's deckhouse in transit on 6 November 2012
Many of the ship's features were originally developed under the DD21 program ("21st Century Destroyer"). In 2001, Congress cut the DD-21 program by half as part of the SC21 program. To save it, the acquisition program was renamed as DD(X) and heavily reworked. The initial funding allocation for DDG-1000 was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007.
A contract worth $1.4 billion was awarded to General Dynamics on 14 February 2008 for the construction of Zumwalt at Bath Iron Works in Bath, Maine.
Full rate production officially began on 11 February 2009.
As of July 2008, the construction timetable was for General Dynamics to deliver the ship in April 2013, with March 2015 as the target for Zumwalt to meet her initial operating capability. However, by 2012, the planned completion and delivery of the vessel had slipped to the 2014 fiscal year.
The first section of the ship was laid down on the slipway at Bath Iron Works on 17 November 2011. By this point, fabrication of the ship was over 60% complete. The naming ceremony was planned for 19 October 2013, but was canceled due to the United States federal government shutdown of 2013.
Despite rumors that the launch of Zumwalt would be delayed until early 2014, the vessel was launched from its shipyard in Bath, Maine on 29 October 2013.
In January 2014, Zumwalt began to prepare for heavy weather trials. The trials will see how the ship and her instrumentation reacts to high winds, stormy seas, and adverse weather conditions. The ship's new wave-piercing tumblehome hull configuration is made to reduce her radar cross-section. Tests will involve lateral and vertical accelerations and pitch and roll. Later tests will include fuel on-loading, data center tests, propulsion events, X-band radar evaluations, and mission systems activation to finalize integration of electronics, currently 90 percent complete out of 6 million lines of code. These all culminate in builders trials and acceptance trials, with delivery for U.S. Navy tests in late 2014 with initial operating capability (IOC) to be reached by 2016.
Here's what really frosts my ass about the ship.
in the last century battleships with 16-inch guns were king. Missouri-class battleships were the top of the line and they cost $100 million dollars each.
In contrast the USS Zumwalt costs $5.6 billion dollars each. That's 56 Iowa-class WW II battleships.
Last up: Littoral Combat Ships.
According the Navy's Bluewater program from the 90s, Littoral Combat Ships were supposed to cost $200 million each. LCS#1 (second from bottom) cost $584 million dollars, LCS #2 (bottom) cost $784 million dollars.
From top to bottom:
$12.9 billion dollars (UNFINISHED)
At least $1 billion dollars to FINISH
$2 billion dollars
$5.6 billion dollars
$1.2 billion dollars
$22.7 billion dollars ($22,700,000,000)
And we haven't talked buying ammo and aircraft for these things. Ka'ching.
Posted by unhappycamper | Tue Dec 9, 2014, 08:41 AM (2 replies)
Washington's ISIS War Drums: Do Stupid Stuff, Do It Now!
Who You Callin' An Organizing Principle?!?!
By William Boardman
General News 9/14/2014 at 15:10:49
As Hillary Clinton was widely quoted as saying recently, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."
Maybe others have pointed out that this is a pretty stupid statement, but that's far from the conventional wisdom. Think about the levels of stupidity here. Only "Great nations"? What, small nations don't need to get their acts together? And who says the United States is a "great" nation and in what sense is it great and isn't spouting a version of the American exceptionalism cliche just another way of doing stupid stuff? As organizing principles go, "Don't do stupid stuff" is a great place to start. Then all you need to do is figure out what's stupid and don't do it: like not voting for war in Iraq in 2002.
What does the aspiring President Clinton offer for her own organizing principle? In her book Hard Choices, she writes: "Making policy is a balancing act. Hopefully we get it more right than wrong." That means even less than "Don't do stupid stuff." That pretty much means: "we're bound to do stupid stuff but we hope we won't do too much stupid stuff."
Of course that makes good political sense coming from the woman who, as Senator Clinton, voted to go to war in Iraq. As if that wasn't totally knowable, in advance, as doing stupid stuff, really stupid stuff. That vote was a clever trap for intimidated Democrats, afraid to stand up to stupid stuff. Senator Clinton was not alone in that rush to war. She, along with Senators Kerry, McCain, Biden, Hagel, McConnell, Reid, and 70 other Senators, voted to support the administration lying us into that war on transparently dishonest evidence. It's kind of cute, in a darkly disastrous way, that these same wrong-headed people are again among those braying most loudly for more war now. It makes a sort of amoral sense, since today's mess is a continuation of the war they voted for because they presumably didn't think it was stupid stuff that would last more than a decade.
Like lemmings, our politicians are drawn to war and those fuckers take us with them.
Posted by unhappycamper | Mon Sep 15, 2014, 05:43 AM (0 replies)
Analysis Of Volunteer's Metadata Stream Reveals His Life In Detail, Allows Passwords To Be Guessed
from the not-"just"-metadata dept
by Glyn Moody
Fri, Sep 12th 2014 7:39pm
Three years ago, Techdirt wrote about how German politician Malte Spitz obtained six months' worth of basic geolocation data for his mobile phone. He then gave this to the German newspaper Die Zeit, which produced a great visualization of his travels during this time. That showed clearly how much was revealed from such basic data. Since then, of course, metadata has assumed an even greater importance, as it has emerged that the NSA routinely gathers huge quantities of it about innocent citizens. More chillingly, we also know that people are killed purely because of their metadata. But what exactly does metadata show about us? We now have a better idea thanks to the generosity of Ton Siedsma from Holland. He has allowed researchers to access not just the geolocation data of his mobile phone, but all of its metadata:
From one week of logs, we were able to attach a timestamp to 15,000 records. Each time Ton's phone made a connection with a communications tower and each time he sent an e-mail or visited a website, we could see when this occurred and where he was at that moment, down to a few metres. We were able to infer a social network based on his phone and e-mail traffic. Using his browser data, we were able to see the sites he visited and the searches he made. And we could see the subject, sender and recipient of every one of his e-mails.
That's very similar to the sort of thing governments around the world are now routinely demanding. Here's what the researchers were able to find out about various aspects of his life as a result. The basics:
Ton is a recent graduate in his early twenties. He receives e-mails about student housing and part-time jobs, which can be concluded from the subject lines and the senders. He works long hours, in part because of his lengthy train commute. He often doesn’t get home until eight o'clock in the evening. Once home, he continues to work until late.
Based on the data, it is quite clear that Ton works as a lawyer for the digital rights organisation Bits of Freedom. He deals mainly with international trade agreements, and maintains contact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a few Members of Parliament about this issue. He follows the decision-making of the European Union closely. He is also interested in the methods of investigation employed by police and intelligence agencies. This also explains his interest in news reports about hacking and rounded-up child pornography rings.
His social networks:
From a social network analysis based on Ton's e-mail traffic, it is possible for us to discern different groups to which he belongs. These clusters are formed by his three e-mail accounts. It may be the case that the groups would look a bit different if we were also to use the metadata from his phone. However, we agreed to not perform any additional investigation, such as actively attempting to discover the identity of the user of a particular number, so as to protect the privacy of those in Ton’s network.
Posted by unhappycamper | Sun Sep 14, 2014, 06:54 AM (1 replies)
Former CIA Lawyer Defends Torture in Der Spiegel Interview
By Eric London
OpEdNews Op Eds 8/27/2014 at 14:42:34
In the interview, Rizzo, who worked at the CIA from 1976 to 2009, declares that although the torture programs he approved "seemed harsh, even brutal," he does not regret his support for their implementation.
"I was certainly an architect of the interrogation program, even if I didn't originally come up with it," he says, adding, "I was the legal architect of the proposed list of techniques and played the lead role in obtaining legal approval for their use."
He goes on to tell Der Spiegel, "I can't honestly sit here and say I would have made any different decisions than the ones I made back in early 2002," even as he asserts, "I am confident that, If I had chosen to, I could have stopped (the torture programs) before they started."
At one point in the interview, Rizzo refers to an interrogation technique on the initial list provided by the Counter Terrorism Center that was "even more chilling than waterboarding." He claims it was never used.
Posted by unhappycamper | Thu Aug 28, 2014, 06:02 AM (0 replies)