Pentagon Says Improper Image Morphing is War Crime 185
mwdib writes "Here's a story in Federal Computing Week in which the Pentagon decides that certain forms of computer morphing could be war crimes." It was hard not to file this under "humor," but Federal Computer Week is a serious publication that almost always gets its stories straight. So loonie as this may seem, it's not a joke.
alas, not murder (Score:2)
ACHTUNG! (Score:1)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone now war criminals (Score:1)
(Note: I did read the article, I'm just joking here)
- Shaheen
How Much is Too Much? (Score:1)
What is the difference between the falsehoods "Our troups will be a coordinants X" and "Your leader has raised the white flag?" I don't belive the rules of engagement say anything about being honest with the enemy.
I have battle damage assesment photographs, on film and digitaly rendered, from the gulf war. If we had not bombed the piss out of the road to Basra, but instead mocked up some images showing the total distruction of the highway, leaked them to the enemy, and it served to divert Iraqi troops elsewhere, would I be a war criminal?
pedantry: morphing? (Score:1)
Morphing is more snoop doggy dog.
Someone should also post a link to voice fonts (or at least that's what they were called at the time) that IBM were playing with. I ran accross the term in an article in wired couple of years ago (back when it was still readable) talking about a guy who was trying to work his way up the VC hill. He was telling wired about a presentation he made where one guy was constantly heckling him -- in Jimmy Stewart's voice. The heckler had distilled down the particulars of that voice to a voice font, and was able to apply it to whatever input he wanted. The interviewee noted that IBM bought the rights. This is of course useful, as you want your leader to speak to the troops too.
Re:Civilian vs. soldier deaths: is 1 worse? (Score:1)
it's actually pretty simple. take a population of say, 50. half of the 50 are men, and half are women.
kill 20 of the men, leaving you with a population of 5 men and 25 women. the war is over, and it's time to repopulate. not a problem. but if it's the other way around, and you're left with 5 women and 25 men, you're s.o.l.
by the very nature of human reproduction, women become far more valuable to the population as a whole after a massive conflict that ends up depopulating an area. likewise, children have a longer breedling life in front of them than older humans.
we're not as removed from the chimps as we'd like to think we are...
Re:Crime only for the Pentagon itself (Score:1)
Re:Crime only for the Pentagon itself (Score:2)
OTOH, how plausible is that?
War is bad, war is evil, yadda, yadda. As long as there are humans on this rock and as long as they are self-aware, there will be war.
I've always thought that there should be an uninhabited area where wars should be fought. No civilians, no property to rebuild, no scorched-earth policies. Kinda like an arena. Both sides square off. Whoever is left standing wins. Quick, less bloody, and televised as an event along with the Super Bowl (ok, now I'm getting twisted
Re:Mines (Score:1)
So why should they be banned?
Re: The Law of War? (Score:1)
Not for me, thank you.
barely on topic... (Score:2)
What's with the big peacenik/dove stance here at Slashdot, yet the vast appreciation for Doom, Quake, HalfLife, etc? Strikes me as a bit hypocritical. War is a nasty, ugly, messy, terrible thing, but sometimes it's needed. WWII, for instance. Or any number of "we're not your colony anymore" wars in Africa, South America, etc. I don't mean that every war is good, or that there is really such a thing as a good war, just that sometimes, when someone gets a little oppresive and power hungry, the only resort is violence. Sure, pacifistic resistance can work, but not in every case. Ditto diplomacy. I think that's something that we as a species need to come to grips with, esp. if we play at war (again, Quake, Doom, Starcraft, etc). Sure, we can have the idealized solution - put the world leaders in a [insert idealized solution here, like footrace/boxing ring/Q3DM] and whoever wins, wins. But what if they cheat? That's all.
itachi, who thinks that a little gibbing is a lot better than a real war any day.
flame on
SF book used this for plot background (Score:2)
Re: Crime only for the Pentagon itself (Score:1)
It is also creative warfare to salt the enemy's land, sterilise the women and shoot the men. Hardly legal, though.
Re: There's nothing loony about it. (Score:2)
Which party to this whole turnip affair is named Baldrick?
Re:Statement from Bill Gates (Score:1)
Re:War Crimes (Score:1)
Soon they will realise that killing in war should be a crime since it also inhumane & immoral.
Hence, they will decide confilcts with server benchmarks. ;-)
In a utopian world: M$ products are classed as biological weapons and their use deemed a war crime.
War crime or propaganda? (Score:1)
Control of mass media has been the key to political and military power since World War Two. The Internet threatens to level the playing field, giving the "have-nots" the ability to put their stories in front of millions of viewers who are not supposed to see anything but press releases composed by prosecutors' offices, military "information officers," and a handful of giant media corporations. Small wonder, then, that regulations and infrastructure specifications needed to implement Internet censorship are being promoted under the banner of "anti-terrorism, anti kiddie-porn, anti-drug." Now they are dragging the words "war crime" into the mix.
Fortunately, the people who actually run the Internet know what censorship is, and what to do about it.
Re: I'd do it.. (Score:1)
Jane Fonda.
She denounced the US in the Vietnam War.
She went to Hanoi (Vietnam) to do it.
War is Hell (Score:1)
There's certainly nothing new about disinformation, deceptive transmissions and decoy messages. All sides did this sort of thing during WWII. The difference is the media.
Re:barely on topic... (Score:2)
The Law of War? (Score:2)
converting to commerce (Score:1)
When you read the story... (Score:1)
We all know how easy it is to edit a graphic.
We all know that graphic edited to misinform and presented as "truth" or "news" could cause great harm.
It is the "great harm" that could be the war crime, not the graphic.
Digital Editing (Score:1)
When they outlaw video toasters, then only outlaws will have video toasters.
Re:All's not fair in love and war (Score:1)
Umm... (Score:1)
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Game Show Fan / C64 Coder
Crime only for the Pentagon itself (Score:2)
There is no mention of normal computer morphing technology being illegal; merely the use of it against enemies during times of war by the army itself is against international law.
Re:Er, was that a joke? (Score:2)
Statement from Bill Gates (Score:3)
More food for thought. (Score:1)
But the implications for works of fiction are interesting. One can have martial law imposed in a municipal area due to riots or other "acts of belligerence". Those "enemies" are engaging in image modification and get caught. Can you say "trial by courtmartial", even though they are civilians?
--
Re: The Law of War? (Score:1)
Well, nearly. If you are interested, and have a strong stomach, you might want to check out the history of the Japanese invasion of China.
Cheers,
Duane.
GOO? (Score:1)
Loony? I think not. (Score:4)
There have ben no cases I know of of actors being arrested for war crimes by impersonating presidents, just as I predict there will be no cases of digital artists arrested for war crimes by morphing world leaders. It's not the technology, it's not even the application, it's the intent. I think you're playing with fire when you broadcast ANY image (technologically created or otherwise) of a world leader calling off troops during a time of war...
Re:The Law of War? (Score:5)
In regards to this particular gem, i'm not entirely sure how this is a "new" revelation - impersonating enemy leaders has always been "illegal", in any form - whether it be cardboard cutouts or professional actors.
Digital imaging is just another form of said impersonation. Why, exactly, did we need a study to show this to be true? Ah, the tax money hard at work.
This is a little off topic, but there's always room for informational links on the Laws of War, so i say
What are the rules of Engagement? [about.com] - about.com
Y! - The Rules of War [yahooligans.com]
Rules of Warfare - Arms Control [tufts.edu]
The Geneva Convention(s) [ukans.edu] - Modern "Laws of War".
.------------ - - -
| big bad mr. frosty
`------------ - - -
Civilian vs. soldier deaths: is 1 worse? (Score:1)
I know this is gonna be a controversial question-- but why is it worse to slaughter a civilian vs. a soldier? An adult vs. a child?
I mean, assuming all human lives are equally valuable, which admittedly not everyone will agree to, I don't get why people think it's more tragic for a baby to die than say, a 70 year old man or a soldier.
Women and children first... (why?)
W
-------------------
Re:barely on topic... (Score:1)
After all, what is the carrot of diplomacy without the stick of war? Sometimes one must resort to force. The pity is that those who fight the wars generally don't care all that much about what they are fighting for. It's the old men in power who send the young men to die.
We need to go back to the old system of the rulers leading the fight, or at least being on the battlefield somewhere. At least they might then exercise some judgement.
Re: The Law of War? (Score:1)
you pretty much lose all dignity you might have.
There's no way any set of rules of engagement
can make slaughter less of a bad thing. In war,
brutality already reigns supreme. A set of rules
for it is silly and pointless.
"Laws of war" (Score:5)
For everything that is forbidden, there are dozens that are far more terrible.
Expanding bullets are forbidden, but shrapnel is okay. It would be horribly wrong for the American soldiers to use bullets that explode (or even mushroom out to double width) when they hit an enemy body, but they are now planning to replace their M-16s with weapons that use sophisticated laser rangefinders and electronic fuses to fire bullets which explode as close as possible to an enemy soldier (in addition to firing conventional steel-jacketed bullets similar to those used in the M-16). However, I'm sure the targets will appreciate the distinction.
The Japanese were not playing fair because of the way they treated prisoners, but it was okay for the US to nuke cities, slaughtering the civilian populations and effectively torturing thousands to death.
The Vietnamese were wrong to treat POW's as they would treat anyone else who ran around "their country" shooting people, but it was fine for the Americans to try to counter guerilla tactics by mass defoliation of the land (with dangerous long-lasting poisons) and air-dumping countless mines that are still killing civilians.
I'm not trying to defend the USA's enemies, just point out the irrationality of the laws of war.
Re:old... (Score:1)
"Every war is based upon deception."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I'd do it.. (Score:1)
war I didn't approve of, I'd be proud to use
morphing or any other means neccesary to end,
cripple, or otherwise harm U.S. military interests
in the affair.
Re:The Law of War? (Score:1)
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:"Laws of war":unbelievable quote from the story (Score:1)
This is, IMHO, a fscking crock. Just last year, the United States broke several International Treaties (and ignored a vote by the Congress) to engage in an illegal war on Yugoslavia. Sidestepping the fact that Milosovic is an *elected* leader, we violated international borders. We used *illegal* cluster bombs. We poisoned the earth with "depleted" uranium bombs. We inserted Special Op forces. Journalists were manipulated with false "atrocity" stories. Anyone who believes this pious "full compliance" crap is either naive or in the pay of the American warlords.
Re:"Laws of war" (Score:1)
This device is designed to change the grenade accuracy from something like 1 in 10 being an effective hit, to 1 in 2. As a civillian, I'd rather not be a potential target of the other 9 grenades that missed. It also changes the yeild of the grenade from 40mm to 20mm - because a closer hit means less explosives are needed to damage the target, which means much less collateral damage.
Yes, the laws of war are irrational, because when it comes down to it, they can only be enforced on the loser. There is only ONE law that does not need to be enforced - and that's the law of the jungle; the fittest survive. So eventually, any loser will forget the other laws, and do what it takes to survive, and win, and defend themselves. God help them if they lose anyway. But since not all wars are wars of extermination, it's not always a matter of survival. And sometimes, war is a necessary evil - so it's nice to have laws governing their prosecution, because it makes a terrible thing, a bit less terrible. We will still have wars, with or without laws. The argument against the laws seems to be that - nobody's going to follow them anyway, and especially, if we make war too pleasant, then we'll have more of them. Well, war's going to happen anyway, people will eventually resort to force when other means to achieve their goals do not work. People break laws in civillian life too, but I think we're all better off that murder and theft are illegal in civillian life. Those things happen a lot less often than they would otherwise.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
Re:Mines (Score:1)
If the US military is only using "smart" mines, they could easily make that idea clear, even in a 15 second sound bite. My guess is that our armed forces would like to have the option of using "dumb" mines, since they must be cheaper and certianly make a psycological impression on the civilians.
There is a big jump between the ability to make a "smart" mine and a committment to use it exclusively. Moreover, just because we can avoid civilian targets and deactivate mines after the war, dosen't mean that we will
Anyway, if you know of any committment to only using "smart" mines by the US armed forces, or know of any proposals for a land mine treaty revision that makes allowances for smart mines, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
btw
the whole concept of geneva conventions is kinda lost on me, in the revolutionary war, we're taught that the patriots were clever to adopt geurilla warfare against the antiquated, redcoats. our current M.O. is to bomb the living sh*t out of everything in our path (civillians and all) and then we complain that terrorism is unfair. like some little country is gonna out-bomb us or invade. i don't like terrorism, land mines or any other kind of warfare any more or less than any others, i pretty much dislike them all equally (well except for nukes and biological weapons, which can affect the entire population)
Re:"Laws of war" (Score:1)
--Fesh
--Fesh
Re:"Laws of war" (Score:1)
Laws don't make much difference to desperate people. If they were willing to fight a war for some reason, I doubt this will mean much to them. Next to killing thousands of people, what's a little impersonation? If the governments of the world really wanted to stop the killing and collateral damage, they'd just put one guy from each side into a giant robot and let them duke it out on a remote island somewhere. Winner take all. :)(yes that was a joke)
Re:Er, was that a joke? (Score:1)
Dreamweaver
Re:Games based on war are war? (Score:2)
Re:barely on topic... (Score:1)
But I must say, I fail to see how pacifism and enjoyment of Half-Life and Q3Test cannot coexist, or how enjoying a game of TFC requires me to come to grips with war. These are games. They have nothing to do with real killing, real violence, or real war. It seems to me this is the same logic that links Quake to school shootings, and I think that's total crap. I just like blowing up a bunch of polygons--what's so wrong with that?
Oh dear... even more off topic.
Re: Bullshit (Score:2)
I have to say though that most of what you object to is NOT illegal, so calling them war crimes makes you look silly. The civilain people killed by mines in Vietnam were not specifically targeted, so the mines were not illegal. War is messy, what can you do about that except not fight wars?
Re:Civilian vs. soldier deaths: is 1 worse? (Score:2)
itachi
Actualy, only the winners don't get prosecuted... (Score:1)
Compare to WW2 where both sides used false radio broadcasts to eachothers populations. Lord Haw-Haw (part of the German propaganda machine) is widely known, his British, Russian and American counterparts aren't, and they broadcast the same type of information. The point being that German propagandists were treated as War Criminals while nothing happened to their Allied conterparts. Just see any recounting of the Inteligence War of WW2 if you're interested.
The same thing goes for the Gulf War. Saddam was denounced as a war criminal for getting his prisoners to talk about how good it was in Iraq and how bad the USA were for declaring war on Iraq. Bush, on the other hand, was not even condemned for bearing false witness as to the Iraqi treatment of the Kuwaitian (sic?) population. Even the most famous case, where Bush and an employee of the Kuwait Embassy fabricated a tale of how Iraqi troops had entered Kuwaiti hostpitals and killed infants in the incubators so they could bring the incubators back to Iraq, brough brough only cursory examination from the western press. But Bush was on the winning side.
It can be argued that this is not the same thing as sending pictures/sound of enemy commanders to their troops, but the way I figure it is only that the target of the deception is the civilian population (often of both countries). (And sending false orders to the enemy is, and will always be, an integral part of war, it's only a question of if it succeeds, and is kept secret, or not.) What I think happened is that members of the DoD got scared at the thought of what could happend if some foregin power got access to their information distribution and acted accordingly. IMHO it is another example of officials saying 'oh, how bad' and secretly planing on doing it to the other fellow anyhow.
But that's what war is all about.
Are Adds War Crimes? (Score:1)
Now, we all know that adds can often be false or misleading, and (as the article states), they often use morphing. Does that make those adds war crimes?
What's good for the goose (Score:1)
Watch out, SNL! (Score:2)
That all said, SNL could be in some trouble if they improve the quality of their opening sketches. I know at least one went something like this:
Bill Clinton on screen..
(talks a bit, leading to) so, these United States of America are now at war. (looks solemn, cracks up) Hah! I really had you going for a minute there, din't I? I bet my approval ratings just shot through the roof! (puts hand on chin, thinks about that for a second.. Has special address from the president interrupted by special address from Bill Gates who says.. well, nothing.).
------
Re:Crime only for the Pentagon itself (Score:2)
itachi
Re:Statement from Bill Gates (Score:1)
Re: War crime or propaganda? (Score:1)
Hardly. If that Nazi newspaper publisher (forget his name; Streicher perh; I believe the paper was The Storm or something similar) could be hung for war crimes, so can someone who commits a war crime over the Internet, which is just one more communications medium. It is not at all absurd to say that the Internet can be a medium for war crimes; no more than to say that it can be a medium for ordinary crime, or for storing the works of Shakespeare.
A medium is neutral and, like almost all neutral things, can be put to good or bad uses.
Treachery or Perfidy (Score:1)
I used to wonder about why there should be rules of engagement until I was issued this book during Officer Training. War is horrible, but as we have demonstrated time and again, we will continue to wage it. In order to extricate our sorry asses from it, we need to be able to trust each just enough to render an end to such a conflict.
From US ARMY (field manual) FM-27-10.Ruses of war are legitimate so long as they do not involve treachery or perfidy on the part of the belligerent resorting to them. They are, however, forbidden if they contravene any generally accepted rule.
The line of demarcation between legitimate ruses and forbidden acts of perfidy is sometimes indistinct, but the following examples indicate the correct principles. It would be an improper practice to secure an advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying or misleading conduct which involves a breach of faith, or when there is a moral obligation to speak the truth. For example, it is improper to feign surrender so as to secure an advantage over the opposing belligerent thereby. So similarly, to broadcast to the enemy that an armistice had been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous. On the other hand, it is a perfectly proper ruse to summon a force to surrender on the ground that it is surrounded and thereby induce such surrender with a small force.
Treacherous or perfidious conduct in war is forbidden because it destroys the basis for a restoration of peace short of the complete annihilation of one belligerent by the other.
Checkout: http://www.adtdl.army.m il/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm [army.mil]http://www.adtdl.army.m il/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/Ch2.htm [army.mil]
Re: You are a narrow-minded nationalist (Score:1)
OTOH, I would probably enlist, and would definitely serve if drafted, should we become involved in a serious war, not because I particularly want to, but because it is my duty. If I were an Iraqi, I would probably do the same (Hussein is a bastard, but he is really no worse than 3 thousand years of caliphs, sheiks, emperors and kings have been). I don't know what I would have done as a German; to fight for Germany would have meant to support the evil Nazis, while to betray the Nazis would be to betray my country and my people. I would probably have attempted to leave the country long before war.
And I would never, ever, ever perform an action which would lead to the deaths of soldiers of the United States. Treason is rightfully a capital offense. A man who betrays his country is a serpent which should be destroyed. If one will betray his country, why not his friends or his family? He is untrustworthy; his very existence is an insult to honest men. I count a fruit fly's life of greater value than his.
Re:barely on topic... (Score:1)
Re:Have you served? (Score:1)
Iraqi's might be stupid but then again perhaps we should look back a couple of thousand years and see which places where the Birth Places of Civilisation.
The real moron here - IS YOU the INDOCTRINATED little shit heel of the NEW WORLD ORDER.
Of course you can feel safe in the knowledge that you protect the innocent from awful gas attacks.
Can anybody say WACO!
Re: You are a narrow-minded nationalist (Score:1)
serpents who should've been destroyed?
Sure, I'd betray my country, friends, or
family if I felt what they were doing is wrong.
Re: Civilian vs. soldier deaths: is 1 worse? (Score:1)
Killing is wrong regardless. But when it has become necessary to do wrong, it has also become necessary to set limits on that wrong. We as a society have decided that civilians should nto be shot or raped, nerve toxins or biological agents should not be released and that enemy leaders should not be impersonated in time of war. Pretty good decisions those.
Where is the news? (Score:1)
And, they mention that 'morphing' would be the likely way of doing this. Ie:
Actor gives speech, computer morphs them intoa likeness of some other countries leader/that leaders voice.
They aren't claiming that morphing software is illegal. They aren't claiming it's a weapon. They aren't really saying much of anything. They aren't even saying that this is US law.. they are only saying that under current international war-crime laws, that impersonating the enemy's leader *could* be considered a war crime, and they mention copmuters can do this these days.
Wow. That's amazing news. Really profound.
Re:Digital Editing (Score:1)
Besides, even DATA couldn't quite "get the hair right".
Are you talking about STTNG:Reunification Part 2?
Or sdo i just watch too much star trek..?
Re: Remember the maili massacre? (Score:1)
Hear hear! You would think that these people would be glad that our military care about decency in war.
Good point: if we act brutally our enemies are more likely to do so. We would respond in kind and warfare would devolve into an ever more-dehumanising experience, worse than it already is. International law seeks to prevent this. I could not have put it better myself.By the way, it's good to see a Marine on Slashdot. I've a brother at the Academy who hopes to be a Marine pilot and an uncle who died on Iwo Jima. My father was a Naval officer and his father was a sailor in WWII. It's good to see someone else pointing out that the military are not evil.
Oorah!
Re:"Laws of war" (Score:2)
First off the whole issue of FMJs being the only allowed ammunition. This fits nicely into the concept of 'Wounding one man takes three out of the battle'. Dum-dums, JHP and similar cause large, gapping, ugly wounds that kill, more or less, outright. Thus it is much nicer to talk about how it's 'inhuman' to use anything but FMJs, than to talk about how much more effective it is to use FMJs.
The same thing goes for every rule of war there is, even the so-called humane ones. They're all practicalities. No rule of war that is impractical was ever followed. Heck, take treatement of prisoners of war. That was followed with the hope that the other party would follow it to, thus enabling the myth of 'our boys will be home some day', a great morale booster for the home front.
As for illogical rules of war they're a dime a dozen. Take the one about having saw-edged bayonettes in WW1. People (read troops) were so taken in with the concept that a saw-edged (and we're talking about the reverse edge) bayonettes would cause horrible wounds (more horrible than a 'normal' foot-and-a-half of steel in the belly would) that they'd kill any enemy having a saw-edge outright. This was later picked up by commanders and politicians and a new rule of war was instilled; 'No saw edged bayonettes'. This is about as logical as calling the Brady Bill an effective way of keeping guns of the streets.
As for the whole Japanese prisoners vs. US bombings issue, look at the 'Only winners aren't prossecuted' post further down.
Re:it has a valid point, but it still sounds stupi (Score:1)
The laws of war has always had a PS:
None of the above really matters - if you win.
You may decide to take the chance and use "illegal" weapons. The laws just make the stakes higher.
Re:Are Adds War Crimes? (Score:1)
For which war would that be? The war against spammers?
-- Abigail
Re:remember the maili massacre? No. (Score:1)
Re: I'd do it.. (Score:1)
It's one thing to work within the system to replace a government with which you disagree. It's another thing entirely to jeapordise the lives of your fellow countrymen. Leave that sort of thing to unprintables like Hanoi Jane.
"We surrender... Fooled you!" (Score:1)
But then again, it's only a rumor I heard. Could be part of the desinformation as well.
Re:What's good for the goose (Score:1)
I'm sure that if you during the next war against Saddam morph an image such that the war ends quickly with Saddam being the "winner" - with only 50,000 US soldiers killed, instead of the expected 200,000 dead Iraqis and a US victory, Uncle Sam won't be pleased with you - even if you "saved" 150,000 lives.
Remember, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
-- Abigail
Re:barely on topic... (Score:2)
itachi
i don't see what's so bad here (Score:1)
as far as using cgi to spread propaganda is of concern to not just the military but to many in the private sector as well. for example, there is some concern in the jewish community that with the advent of better and better computer imaging, history itself is not safe, that there is a possibility of someone just "finding" a lost film reel that proves that the nazis did not, in fact, have death camps and that millions were not killed. in retrospect, maybe the laws of war should apply to such deception as well. jokes on SNL are one thing -- we all know that it's a joke. what if someone pulled the wool over our eyes with malicious intent?
Re: The Law of War? (Score:1)
And never you mind Stalin and Churchill pushing pieces of paper around discussing how to split up Europe.
Of course you may argue that it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil. Much better to imprison a populace for their place of origin (or parents, or grandparents, or...) than to imprison...wait a moment!
I think you'll find that all comparisons are made between one side pushed to an extreme, and another fairly at ease by comparison.
Constrain war. Hah! War defines it's own rules. And I dont like Quake. Makes me queasy. C&C I do have a taste for.
Games based on war are war? (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:Anyone seen the movie Screamers? (Score:1)
In general, though, this theme is well covered by PKD - also read "The Three Stigmatas of Palmer Eldrich" for further discussion.
Re:"We surrender... Fooled you!" (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:very offtopic (Score:1)
//rdj
Re:"Laws of war":unbelievable quote from the story (Score:1)
First depleted uranium shells are not bombs, uranium is used because it is very dense and can puncture other metal, it never explodes.
Second,everything about maniputation of the press in Yugoslavia is just hearsay. I know a journalist that was in Yugoslavia, and he personally saw many of the horrors, mostly commited on the Albainians, but not exclusivly. The vast majority of false "atrocity" were by Milosovics government, who were sending bus's over target bridges continuosly, they know the best way to fight the US is through the American media.
I do not know anything about the *illegal* cluster bombs, however i would like to know who declared them *illegal*, and if the United States signed the treaty
It seems that so many people here are so concentrated on american bashing that they can ignore the actual facts and only look at conspericy theories. I guess it is just a case of the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but if the United States really used its special forces extensivly for illegal operations, I have a feeling Sadam Hussian would have been assainated a long time ago.
If you take time and look at these events from a unbiased viewpoint you would look back at yourself and see someone who is very "naive", however so would someone who believes everything the government or CNN say. If you do, you will see that most of the people who say other are sheep, really are themselves sheep. I really wish that would forget their biases and look at everything objectivly, but i can't see it happening soon.
Oh well, i don't even think any of this should bother me, i'm Canadian
Re:Mines (Score:1)
At first this would seem like a stupid, irrational move on the part of the American. However, the Americans were perfectly willing to sign, grated one exemption until around 2005 for landmines planted around the demilliterized zone at the korean boarder.
These landmies protect the 20,000+ american soldiers still stationed in South Korea, after a cease fire ended UN involement there. North Korea is very unstable, with a much larger army then the Americans stationed their.
Unforutunatly, because several of the people involved in this treaty were in line for a Nobel prize, they decided not to grant any exemptions, and the US did not sign the treaty.
Re:Er, was that a joke? (Score:2)
very offtopic (Score:2)
Re:There's nothing loony about it. (Score:2)
Too far fetched. Serving turnips to POWs, and calling it food is a crime.
-- Abigail
Re:"Laws of war" (Score:2)
Actually, it's war that is silly. Laws are quite serious...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
CyberWorldWar I (Score:2)
In the mean time Asian hackers decide that to be out of te mess is too boring. And they start to shoot everywhere and everyone. Some of these shoots get into Australia, South America and Africa. They also start replying.
In the mean time in the US, in a big computer center, a small engineer comes to the conclusion that he is not paid for such mess. "Enough is enough". He picks a shotgun and drops the whole stuff at a nearby box...
There's nothing loony about it. (Score:4)
This is simply recognition of a potential use of computer image manipulation. They aren't saying in any way that "morphing" in general is a war crime.
You could probably commit a war crime with turnips, too.
Chill out (Score:2)
it has a valid point, but it still sounds stupid (Score:2)
One more thing:
The long-distance and anonymous nature of computer network attacks may make detection and prosecution unlikely, but it is the firmly established policy of the United States that U.S. forces will fight in full compliance with the law of war," the study concluded.
Number one, since when did war have or need laws?
Number two, isn't all fair in love and war?
That might be Ok, but... (Score:2)
Leave my nightclub out of this (Score:2)
Not in MY club you won't, ya commie bastard!
jk!
---
All's not fair in love and war (Score:4)
The old saying, "All's fair in love and war," isn't quite true. The Geneva Convention makes certain types of war effectively illegal (at least insofar as nobody's really in a position to enforce it), and it's there for a good reason.
This refers to using digital morphing techniques in a clearly deceptive manner - say, to "announce" a cessation of hostilities, so $VILLAIN can launch a sneak attack on $GOODGUYS, catching them unprepared and making it an easy slaughter.
War, like software development, is an imprecise art. But there are rules, and most of them are there for good reasons.
False Armistice (Score:2)
By the way, if a future war on the scale of the Gulf War were carried out, in a modern internet connected country, I think it would immediately isolate it's networks, 1) To prevent information leakage and 2) To control information given to the populace as well as 3) To prevent cracking attacks.
Re:There's nothing loony about it. (Score:4)
Certainly... Gen. Evil Criminal sends a an encrypted message carved into a turnip to his trusted Lieutenant ordering the killing of all held prisoners of war.
bonus question: if Gen. Evil Criminal mails the turnip from Washington, D.C. to his Lieutenant in Libya is he in violation of the munitions regulations controlling the export of strong cryptography (assume the turnip contains a 3DES encrypted message)?
Damn it! (Score:5)
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:There's nothing loony about it. (Score:2)
Re:There's nothing loony about it. (Score:4)
(a) if the turnip uses RSA instead of 3DES how many U.S. laws has the general broken (assume he is considered a visiting diplomat).
(b) for which of these crimes may he claim "diplomatic immunity"?
(c) if the Lieutenant eats the turnip is this destruction of evidence?
(d)
(f)Have I had too many beers?
the purpose of the study (Score:2)
Basically, I think they got together a group of experts in international law and asked them "How much can we get away with?" After all, they need to know what they can admit to in public...