Texas students hijack drone aircraft

Credit: Post based on Ryan Whitwam writing for Geek.com

[caption id="attachment_1457" align="alignleft" width="300"] Missile launch is triggered from Sam’s iPhone[/caption]

Look! Up in the sky…Is it a bird? a plane? No! It’s an unmanned Predator drone, hijacked by students! That’s right. Whiz kids from University of Texas at Austin took control of an aerial drone by altering its course.

The task was shockingly simple. Instead of hacking the primary control firmware, they fed its GPS mechanism a false signal, tricking the flying Al Qaeda hunter into heading wherever they wished, perhaps into the 3rd floor showers of the sorority. This was no fly-by-night operation (pardon the pun). The Department of Homeland asked students to try hacking the drone and gaining control. Was it expensive? It required only $1000 worth of equipment to seize control of a multi-million dollar piece of technology used by the US military and CIA.

The government became concerned about the vulnerability of drone aircraft after it became apparent that Iran had most likely taken control of a US drone and crashed it in Iranian territory several months ago. The Austin students, led by professor Todd Humphreys, used the GPS equipment to spoof the GPS signal being sent to the drone. Spoofing the signal means the students were able to trick the drone into mistaking their signal for the real one, allowing them to lead the drone astray. The aircraft being used employs the same unencrypted GPS signals used by government vehicles.

This hack presents a serious problem for proponents of using domestic drones. If any kid with $1000 and a little know-how can crash a drone into things or perhaps drop a payload!), well–that’s just not cricket. It is currently illegal to use drone aircraft in US airspace without special clearance from the FAA, and now it might take a little longer than expected for that to change.

RT via Popular Science

ICANN gTLD Plan Begins to Unravel

Oh ICANN, Dear ICANN. Please say it ain’t so!

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the bureaucracy that oversees the Internet. This committee of intellectuals coordinates IP address space, assigns address blocks, governs standards, administers root DNS architecture, develops internationalization, arbitrates disputes, and perhaps – most ignobly – it sets policy over Top Level Domains.

They do this all under a US government contract which evolved as the Internet grew from academic and military roots to become an all-encompassing network of global public highways. But over the years and throughout the shifting winds of politics and technology, one thing has remained constant: ICANN’s fundamental Raison d'être is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet. Obviously, they cannot ensure the stability and ready access of every web server. The operation, maintenance and connection of equipment is the responsibility of the millions of server owners across the globe. Each GoDaddy, each Google, and each individual user is a node in a vast network that gradually creeps—some pundits suspect—toward consciousness.

Since ICANN manages a public resource, there will always be political components to the organization structure and funding. After all, it is difficult to imagine their responsibilities fulfilled by an entity subject to pure, free market mechanisms. But because they are international in scope, setting standards & policy that affect billions of people in every nook and cranny of our world, they should be depoliticized to the extent possible. Every opportunity should be exploited to move each department and each function toward free market mechanisms.

Unfortunately, in the post-Esther Dyson era, ICANN has turned into a money grubbing hodgepodge of special interests. It certainly appears that they are extorting wads of cash from the public by raising fears of trademark infringement. It’s the only reasonable explanation for their insane and malfeasant decision to create unlimited global Top Level Domains (gTLDs).

If you already operate as Coca-Cola.com, why on earth should you be pushed into buying .Coca-Cola? Simple. Because ICANN will sell it to someone else if you don’t.

In the middle of 2011, ICANN cooked up a cockamamie idea to unleash an infinite number of random top level domains on the world. I tried hard to dissuade ICANN from proliferating gTLDs when it was proposed in June 2011. (I wrote about it here at AWildDuck, when the Blog was created in August). I have a few friends at ICANN, though I suspect I am losing them fast. And so, here is my mea culpa: I told you so...

No—The plan has not yet been fully implemented. It’s slated to go online in 2013. But it’s already beginning to unravel. Today, ICANN announced that due to public dissent and gross technical problems (they called it “unexpected results”), they are scrapping a new system designed to prioritize TLD applications. This is big news to the few thousand applicants who hope to own custom top level domains such as .google, .dance-with-the-stars, or .i_are_an_idiot! After all, they put up US $185,000 each to corner the market for snake oil. They see it as a potentially valuable piece of web real estate.

Dear applicants: It is not. It is smoke up your derriere—an illusion.

Listen up, ICANN: Stop duping the public. Stop profiteering. It’s not in your charter. Go back to square one. In fact, Go a few steps behind square one. you are solving a problem that does not exist. There are already too many gTLDs (.com and .gov and perhaps .org are the only ones that are useful). Everything else clouds the water and invites squatters and profiteers. They only serve to fatten your wallets or stir up trade name disputes.

A better idea: Get rid of all TLDs. Every one of them! Let current .com users own the ‘naked term’ and stop forcing little guys to repurchase their names. Please ICANN. The current debacle is just the first embarrassment. Run back. Admit the error. Give it up!

Apple’s Trade Embargo. Is it “racial” discrimination?

I generally shy away from trendy stories of the day. They are covered elsewhere and the wonks are predictable. Columnists and bloggers add spin of their own camp, either liberal or conservative. My take on these stories would be similarly predictable. That’s why I hold out for something with meat on the bone—something to which I can lend a Wild Duck insight. After all, I want the ‘wild’ part to mean something.

But today, a story making news misses a very critical fact. One that changes the conclusion. Let me explain...

Sahar Sabet is a typical America teen. Although she comes from Iran, she is a US citizen. She looks, speaks, dresses and grooms like a typical, white, suburban girl. Of course, even if she looked, dressed or behaved as a foreigner or an immigrant (an absurd determination for a country filled with immigrants), you would expect that in a shopping mall, she would be treated like any other shopper.

This weekend, Sahar and her uncle browsed an Apple store at North Pointe Mall in Alpharetta Georgia. Choosing an iPad, the salesman overheard the couple speaking in Farsi. When Sahar explained that it is the language of Iran–also known as Persia–the salesman prohibited the sale, explaining “Our countries do not have good relations”. He stated that Apple enforces a trade embargo against Iran and several other countries and showed the would be customers a written Apple policy which, itself, cites US trade restrictions.

For consumers of mainstream media, the Apple salesman seemed racist or, at the very least, ignorant. What do trade relations have to do with a retail sale? And how could he miss the fact that Sahar is a citizen of the same county as himself and the late Steve Jobs?

Sitting outside her home and talking to a television reporter, Sahar explains that she left the store in tears. Zack Jafarzadeh had the same experience at the nearby Perimeter Mall. Perhaps more bizarre, he is born in Virginia of Iranian ancestry. In the video clip below, he states that the policy smacks of ethnic profiling. Of course, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) protested the incident immediately.*

You will find a great many news stories about Sahar’s trip to the mall this week. But a few stories, like this firsthand account from an Atlanta television station include a fact that is critical and yet overlooked in the commentary. It makes all the difference in the world:

“The iPad was to be a gift for her cousin who lives in Iran.”

Wohah!...That changes everything! The US trade embargo law specifically mandates that the store shall not sell embargoed technology if they know that the product will be exported, transferred or re-exported to Iran. It’s not clear if the salesman was made aware of the intention to export the iPad, or if he was a closet racist, or perhaps he was expressing his own post-911 anxiety. But either way, this is valid trade law, and Apple would get into a lot of trouble if they violate this law.

Zack was born in Virginia. Both he and Sahar are as American as apple pie. So naturally, news reports slam the Apple salesman for profiling immigrants. They also question the role of a private company in enforcing a federal trade embargo at the point of sale. But again, they miss the point. To illustrate, consider this bump in the success story of Digital Equipment Corporation, the Massachusetts minicomputer manufacturer that rivaled IBM in the 1970s and 80s...

In the early 1980s, Digital’s flagship minicomputer, the VAX 780, had the distinction of being on the original list of embargo technology. Naturally, during the Cold War, sales of fast computers to the Soviet Union were restricted.

[caption id="attachment_1432" align="alignright" width="281"] During the Cold War, selling fast computers to Soviets was illegal, even if transferred through an intermediary or neutral country.[/caption]

Sellers of large, expensive computers generally know their buyers. Even if a deal is not initiated by the sales team, sellers defend price and competitive position. Engineers at buyer and builder talk nuts & bolts. This was no exception. But because Digital could not openly sell to Russians, they transferred the machine to an American shill organization, because an intermediary is more likely to fly under the radar while transferring the computer to the Soviets.

Bad move, Digital! The deal was discovered and the company faced an inquiry and stiff penalties. Most importantly, they were disgraced in the press.

Regarding the Apple iPad, one could question the law as it applies to a popular consumer item, one that is available in many other countries. But the law and its clear focus on export awareness by sellers restricted lends a different spin to the Apple salesman’s actions.

Just as with Miss Sabet, Mr. Jafarzadeh was purchasing the iPad for an Iranian friend who accompanied him to the store. He was in the United States on a student visa. If this fact were apparent to the salesman, then he would be compelled to deny the sale.

Incidentally, Sabet’s mother was able to purchase the iPad on a subsequent visit and an Apple spokesperson told reporters that it could also be purchased online to circumvent the policy (or at least the enforcement of the policy). While this may be the case, it might still violate US trade law. The law is clear. Certain products, services, technology and components are prohibited from being sold, directly or indirectly, if they are slated to be exported, transferred or re-exported to countries on a technology embargo list that includes Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.

_____________
* Despite the warm-fuzzy title, CAIR is a widely acknowledged front for terrorists, still operating, openly, within the United States. The group’s actions speak volumes about their agenda, posing as an NGO of tolerance and cultural bridges while seeking to use our western tradition of inclusion, tolerance and accommodation to make Islamic Sharia Law palatable in America. But I digress. We can cover that story in another post.

Kids and Facebook (revisited)

My friend, Damon, wrote an insanely popular post to his own blog. Shortly after viewing a suggestive Facebook photo by his daughter’s online acquaintance (another 12 year old girl), he solicited readers to opine about preteens who post swimsuit “fashion” photos, pose suggestively, and then comment on each other’s “hotness”. He worries that it may invite unwarranted or even dangerous attention.

Of course, in no time at all, Moms & Dads were falling all over each other in their response. The feedback generally fell into these categories:

• “My little Alice would never do anything like that!”


• “I don’t allow Betty to use Facebook”


• “Why doesn’t someone demand that Facebook police the age of users?”

Related: Filter a child from online porn? Stop worrying!

[caption id="attachment_1350" align="alignright" width="109"] Damon[/caption]

A feature in today’s Wall Street Journal discusses Facebook policy towards children. Depending upon on the news source, they are either thinking of granting access to kids under 13 – or not. Forbes says that access for preteens might make them safer. Of course, the truth is that Facebook has no way to tell the age of its users—nor should they care, except for purposes of marketing demographics. Policing an online audience achieves nothing and opens up the gatekeepers to all sorts of liability.

This might be a good time to review the stats: Nearly 40% of kids between 9 and 12 already have their own Facebook accounts. In fact, more than 5 million of these kids are under 10. The numbers will grow regardless of the ‘rules’, but the good news: This is a good thing. Kids and Facebook aren’t the problem. But parents are often a problem.

Ellery’s thoughts can be summarized in a pithy string of words: Parenting, closed circles, and reading the unredacted news together. And, oh yes...Did I mention, ‘parenting’?

[caption id="attachment_1361" align="alignleft" width="188"] Avoiding online predators[/caption]

It’s easy to jump on the bandwagons of filters, censorship and parental controls. But restricting kids to online kiddie activities is rarely in order. Prohibitions rarely have the intended effect. Kids get what they want while parents encourage deceit and risk. Web savvy kids don’t need a Facebook account to post raunchy photos. Any eight year old with internet access can do it with ease.

A more practical solution begins like this: Keep PCs in an open and busy area of your living room or kitchen. Spend time with your kids. Talk about these things. Get them to close their circles (friends only). Know their friends and (depending upon age and responsibility) Friend them yourself (the one rule that I accept). But ultimately, trust them to do the right thing. If you lead by example—giving children a chance to be safe & responsible—you will be amazed at how responsible they can be.

Damon wondered Why Facebook doesn’t do a better job policing the age of its users.

Editor’s Note: Damon polled readers about a photo and comments posted
to Facebook by an early teen. Damon and some of his readers feel that
the posting is risky or inappropriate. But he did not advocate that it
is incumbent upon Facebook to police the age of its users. (I jumped
to that conclusion about his position). His poll was intended to spark
discussion. In fact, he agrees with my perspective below.

While it is tempting to blame web services for lax oversight, I really don’t think that it is realistic to expect them to police electronic traffic. It smacks of a Nanny state and it opens up every Blogger and hosting service to unwarranted liability. Facebook can no more be responsible for activity on your child’s page than the phone company can be responsible for foul language or bullying.

Imagine the maker of steak knives enforcing an “age policy”. With a sense of purpose and a massive effort, they have almost no influence over the individual family members that grab their utensil from kitchen drawers across the world. It is ludicrous to assume that Facebook could, would or even should police the age of users. That’s a job for parents! My pre-teen daughter has had a Facebook account since she could type. I accept it. It is a tool of the times. (Actually, it is an insanely useless and ill-crafted tool, but that’s beside the point). We talk frequently about appropriate use. I am included in her circles (and therefore, invited to monitor), and I continuously re-evaluate activities & venues as she matures. Facebook is many things: a Blog, a social gathering spot, a gaming site, an academic tool, and much more. Although I feel that the service has little benefit and lax standards, it is easy to monitor and it supports closed communities.

[caption id="attachment_1355" align="alignleft" width="174"] Facebook is popular with kids & soccer moms, but a lousy social network[/caption]

But let’s face it, Bucko! It’s a social network and not a baby sitter. Gossip and even occasional raunch among close friends is to be expected. It’s much more important to talk with your kids, test your trust, and constantly reassess if your progeny is living up to your expectations.

You know the drill, ducks. So Sayeth Ellery. Tell me what you think.

Green Lantern comes out of the closet

I am in favor of gay rights. Yet, today’s news is, well, a bit goofy. Is it possible that Ellery is not the progressive, tolerant Dude that I have cultivated? First some background...

20 years ago, my business partner, Gerry, and I walked across Central Park. We were wearing blue jeans—and for some reason that I don’t recall, we were horsing around and slapping each other on the back. Suddenly, a news photographer popped in front of us and took our photo. He wasn’t carrying a snapshot camera, but a big, professional photo-journalist camera. He may have asked permission to publish the photo—I don’t recall. We certainly would have given consent. Our company was undergoing venture financing. I figured the investors would get a lift by seeing their new partners in a story about the first day of summer, park beautification, or whatever.

[caption id="attachment_1325" align="alignleft" width="153"] In brightest day, in darkest night—No evil shall escape my sight[/caption]

But later, as we strolled toward a crowd on the far side of the park, we learned that this was Gay Pride Day. Overhead banners urged supporters to show their pride by wearing jeans (Don’t we all wear jeans?!). TV & news photographers zoomed in on men holding hands, butts or cuddling amongst the crowd. The next morning, Gerry and I were splashed across the front page of our nation’s newspapers. We were mortified! The caption didn’t identify us, but to our friends, colleagues and communities, we were presented as gay lovers. Outed...And we weren’t even members of the club!

I’m not gay and I doubt that Gerry is, either. At the time, I was beginning to turn away from five years of intolerance at college. As I matured, I not only mellowed, I came to abhor anti-gay activism. I became an advocate for ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, especially when it rears its head in law and public policy. Homophobia is not only callous and unfair, it arises from religious doctrine, a narrow minded perspective—or it indicates repressed homosexuality; that’s my favorite explanation.

Today, I am tolerant and progressive. I favor ratification of gay marriage (not just a “civil union”. That’s a whitewash). The time has come to recognize that this issue is more about personal freedom, expression and privacy—than about any legitimate right for a government to discriminate.

[caption id="attachment_1323" align="alignright" width="156"] Is this necessary? Is Ellery a hypocrite?[/caption]

But now, DC comics has revealed that Green Lantern likes to French kiss his mate and cuddle with him as they walk down a street in Hong Kong(?!) Is it necessary for the stewards of our super heroes to turn the comics into a political statement? I realize that Superman has Lois Lane and Batman flirts with Bat Girl (N.B. Even she has been recast as a lesbian!). I am 100% comfortable about gays in every walk of life. Not just tolerating their presence, mind you. I honestly think that they add a rich cultural dimension to the fabric of society. But I am just a bit troubled that DC is using the issue to push back into everyone’s face and begin the desensitizing process within the pages of a super hero comic.

Look at the collage of cartoon frames released today by DC Comics (from the upcoming June 2012 issue, Green Lantern, Earth 2).  Is this a distraction—or legitimate and non-political character development? Is it a reasonable part of the story line? To me, it seems like a subplot with an agenda. Even though the agenda is not offensive, I can’t quite justify it in this venue. I would be much more comfortable encountering it on the editorial pages, among my friends, and in books & films. Just, not within a DC comic. Does that make me a hypocrite? Honestly, I’m not sure. Tell me what you think?

Editor’s Note:
The title suggests that Green Lantern has “come out of the closet”. Actually, the new issue shows him to have been openly gay all along. Additionally, the character is not Hal Jordan from 60s and 70s, a member of the Justice League. He is Alan Scott, a retro character from the early comics of the 1940s.