Definitely true, though I'm sure there are people at the various military contractors that knew better all along. There's no excuse for being lax about security when national security, defense, and military equipment and personnel are involved.
Yes, a video signal is different from the control signal, but any intelligence intercepted by an enemy is still a security risk. More often than not, intelligence from those drones is relayed by radio to ground units rather than being directly received by those units. (Some degree of analysis usually needs to be done.) The video signal needs to be encrypted just as much as the control signals.
My point with regards to the malware infection was more that this should have triggered a re-evaluation of the security involved in the maintenance and usage of our drones.
With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware.
Right, but that makes it not Open Source! That's all I'm saying. Not that google is evil since that's subjective, or anything else for that matter, just that Honeycomb is not Open Source, and Honeycomb is a release of Android, and therefore you cannot say "Android is Open Source", you can only say "Most versions of Android are Open Source".
But I think you're overlooking the fact that there are lots of open source projects run by companies that make public releases with most of their code, and then also release a closed source version with enhancements from which they make a profit. In addition, as the copyright holder of a project, you're allowed to make some portions or versions of it open source and other portions or versions closed source for whatever reason you like. I may be mistaken, but I think that Android is indeed a dual or multi license project enabling Google to do that very thing even if they weren't the copyright holder. Nonetheless, if and when ICS's source is released, Honeycomb will be irrelevant unless someone really, really, really wants to work with that older version. So I think the point of this discussion is moot.
[citation needed]. Links to lies, fraudulent claims etc please.
Lie: Android is Open Source. Links: everywhere. Counterproof: ICS has been out for ages but the source hasn't. How can you even try to continue this conversation?
Or are you just assuming that using the term "Open Source" is some sort of binding contract for the developer to turn over any and all future source code, regardless of the state of completion?
No, "Open Source" means that whoever can get the binary can get the source. This is the sense in which SCO was open, and Sun before them; anyone who really needed the SunOS source and who had a sizable service contract could get it. But Google is currently not even that Open. They were in the past, and perhaps they will be soon, but they are not currently.
ICS is not an Open Source operating system, and it won't be until Google makes good on their promises.
You probably just tripped yourself up a bit in order to rush that reply out, but ICS hasn't been out AT ALL. Honeycomb was released earlier this year and they haven't released the source to that at all. That said, Google has now said multiple times that they will release the source to ICS once products using it have been released. There's not one released ICS product on the market at the moment. So complain about it after they Galaxy Nexus hits the shelves.
With regards to Honeycomb, I don't recall them ever actually saying that they'd release the source, though they were willing to share the release with partners that could produce sufficiently powerful hardware. Even then, I believe they *did* say they'd look at releasing the source eventually. Eventually doesn't mean last month, last week, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year. It means at some point in the future. And for what it's worth, the vast majority of the changes in Honeycomb are in ICS from what I gather, so why not just be satisfied with the newer and better release once the source becomes available.
Take a breath and calm down. Having the source to tinker around with and make your own custom build isn't that important unless you're working on a product you're trying to sell to actual customers.
Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard