If I break into your house, and then walk into your main hallway, and then say, "There is a security flaw in your home! From this point in your hallway I can listen to any room, or walk down freely into any room." As you're looking at your front door splintered from the battering ram I hit it with to get in, would you call it a "hack," a flaw or something to be concerned about how your hallway(s) go through your house? No, you'd say, "The hallway is fine, I need a stronger front door. BTW, the Glock I'm holding is loaded."

When I start to read, "SS7 was designed in the 80s," I already know I'm dealing wtih a mental midget. Actually, SS7 begain due to the first ever hackers. Remember 2600? As in, 2600 Hz was the signaling frequency for a landline switch. Throw that tone, and you could make calls (for free if it was a payphone). Hence, telecoms came up with an idea to do out of band signaling, which eventually became SS7. So, saying you can "hack" SS7 is very misleading because all SS7 does is coordinate call set up. That "ringing" you hear as you wait for the far, distant switch to reply that the called line is available, is a "comfort tone," as SS7 does it's work. Besides cutting down on fraud, SS7 keeps circuits available, because if the called number is busy, or unavailable, there's no point in setting up a line between your local switch and the switch at the far end.

In the deepest bowels of a switching office, usually near the back, you'll see SS7 racks. These connect from and between local, long-distance and other switches. It's what you'd call, "Back Office," network, similar to the network used by the telecoms to manage their servers your traffic go across but you'll never touch. Such as 3G data going through PCF after it's left the mobile switch, and before it hits an internet backbone ATM. So in simple terms, you'd have to break in, figure out the network, and then figure out a 2nd break in to get to the SS7, and then you'd be in a very small part of the network.

Honestly, if you're going to be doing that much effort, you're NOT going after SS7. Just hack the 3-letter agencies or other LEO server for court-approved wiretapping that is hanging off the switching network and you're in anything, everything, anywhere.

I'm at work so I don't have time to wade through all the comments, but you might look at http://www.pulselink.com/ They do ethernet over coax, which if I recall goes well over gigabit speeds in some cases.

Besides, we also have recent precedence on this. There are laws which prohibited certain anti-competitive behavior for newspapers. If you stifle the channels of communication, say the printing press in the 1800s, then you control the narrative(s). Today, the Internet is uniquely in that very same position. If you allow a privately owned organization to take self-serving priorities, with no competitive alternatives available, then you are again in a position where the narrative is dictated. Let's say Comcast buys Fox, and now only Fox content streams quickly. A Comcast subscriber decides to hear the alternative side of the narrative, say from MSNBC or CNN, but they get constant "spinning wheels," as they wait. Occasionally they get resets (as ISPs have been caught doing to P2P), or accidental DNS redirects to blackholes.

Also, the Internet was originally developed by the government and universities, and did not prioritize traffic. Imagine, for example, if GPS were to be "bought" by GE. You can only get fine positioning if you pay $x a month, but if you don't, you get 200m accuracy. Maybe this is your street to turn on, maybe it was a block back.

Here lately, seems their day at school would have been moot as they are led to a waiting black SUV. Then, SWAT would move into their house and take everything that plugs into a wall and has Ethernet capabilities. Think I'm joking?

"You may not care about justice, but your organizations lack of concern for those princibles are exactly why I just see them as a gang of murderers."

How do you know what I care about? You don't even have a basic understanding of how a strike or target package gets put together, and yet, come to a stated conclusion. I'll assume this will fall on deaf ears, but take some time to understand a topic before condemning. First, every member in the US military goes through LOAC training every year. If you're a cook or a sniper, you know The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Then, Rules of Engagement (RoE), which any US military member involved with the application of kinetic force (e.g. snipers, infantry, fighter pilots, etc) is trained and held accountable. Then, understand how how the military gets information from people, and then you might BEGIN to understand the premise of what's happening. I can't find open source (read: unclassified) reports on how the target packages are put together, so I'll avoid specifics, but I did allude to it in my original message. This also is still incomplete because there are also Military Lawyers involved. Yes, a lawyer can say, "NO GO," when everything else says, "GO!".

No one hates war more than a war fighter. 100,000+ Americans did not decide they really wanted to go visit Afghanistan for sun and fun, but political and other factors that manifested after Sept 11, 2001 changed things.

An airstrike does not happen in your scenario for two main reasons (among many others): Source grade and single source rules.

First, your Guy C is an unknown. His source report will grade him very low. It will be low because he's never reported before, nothing he said is corroborated through 3rd, unrelated sources and for some other reasons. All source reports are given a grade and only reports above a certain grade are acted upon. The rest are treated as, "stuff you might read on the internet."

Second, no strike package is getting approved with a single source HUMINT...even if it's graded at the very top (reliable from previous experience, etc). I don't want to get more specific but let's say very smart people are 3 steps ahead in thinking this scenario through and how to avoid the mistakes.

Your scenario does play out with the DEA in the US, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this article or my previous comments.

Do you see free market innovation thriving with DMCA despite the apparent lack of innovation?

Articulation of my question: When I buy a car, I can modify it. If people like my modification they can view it at my leisure and tinker themselves. GM doesn't sue me, and if I open a business to work on other GM cars to do similar GM vehicle modifications, then I have little legal exposure. However, with DMCA, GM can shut down a video if it's "suspected" I've infringed on a digital asset, and I can't legally sell modifications of their digital asset. This is why we see every new technology for digital streaming of data run a gauntlet of legal hurdles, which in turn stifles new innovation in the area of digital property.

Very good articulated and supported point which is valid, however, the targeting is no longer the guys with an idea. Meaning, 5 years ago you'd have targeted the emplacers (the guy with a shovel, or in your analogy, an idea). With time, the lesson was learned the effect was small and it is relatively ineffective. Now, you go up the chain and after those who enable others to become more effective. Let me give an example, let's say AQ has three targets in the US: A general officer, a private and an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer).

Taking out the General is symbolic but has very little impact on the effectivness of the US Army. If you take out a private, there are 10-20 others identically trained and with similar levels of proficiency. However, the NCO leads several squads. The NCO is a trainer, mentor, coach, knowledge manager and adult babysitter.

Taking the NCO out has a real effect on the battlefield as General Officer orders may not get correctly implemented, new troops may not come up to speed (read: battle effective) as fast, etc.

So, the best target for having an effect on battle is the NCO. The US and NATO are not after the General or the Privates... yes if there's a target of opportunity, a real threat, and the RoE/LoAC allows, a shot is taken, but the active targeting is at the NCO level. I wish I could be more specific but I won't. Just as most of what you read in mainstream or see in the movies about computers, technology, etc is wrong, so is the supposed, "wanton carnage from UAVs bombing everyone." I spent 3 years watching hundreds of strikes and you couldn't even apply most of what I read here to the exceptions, much less the "norm." People read a few articles and suddenly are experts on tactical military operations 1/2 way around the world (ignoring the few who incorrectly refer to it as "strategic bombing").

You're pretty close which is good considering the lack of credible information available in this article, and in general on /. The drone strikes don't get a few henchmen and one or two leaders. Are leaders targeted? Absolutely. However, the real push is to get the people who have an __EFFECT__ on the battlefield. If killing bad guy A leaves an organization, which has a deputy, without a leader, but killing bad guy B eliminates a guy who trains 10 others every week how to create bombs, then guy B get's the prioritized assets (an armed, eye in the sky escort if you will). The author of this cited article doesn't really understand who's targeting and who's effectively taken out. I don't know if it's because a university researcher stateside doesn't/won't have a need-to-know and the clearance to review SIGINT, HUMINT, and other intellegence on the effects of UAV strikes. I can say her stated conclusions are detached from reality.

The US has only performed strategic bombing twice, and it was back in WWII over Japan. Nuclear bombs are strategic. A GBU dropped from a Predator, Reaper, of manned fighter is tactical bombing.

You read the article you link? I was unaware of this specific incident, however, the US Navy was within a war zone (Iraq - Iran 7 Year war), the Navy ship was squawking warnings, the ship's assets had been fired upon, there'd been a case earlier of a US Navy ship directly attack (yes by Iraq), and the Navy ship mis-identified the airliner as an F-14 (which Iran possessed). Not really the same context, albeit the US side made many mistakes.

The Russians, in the case of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 sent up an interceptor. An interceptor normally would make a visual as they are way out over the ocean and are not (yet a threat). Here is the excerpted radio transmissions:

The Commander of the Soviet Far East District Air Defense Forces, General Valery Kamensky,[32] was adamant that KAL 007 was to be destroyed even over neutral waters but only after positive identification showed it not to be a passenger plane. His subordinate, General Anatoly Kornukov, commander of Sokol Air base (later to become commander of the Russian Air Force), was adamant that there was no need to make positive identification as "the intruder" had already flown over the Kamchatka Peninsula.
General Kornukov (to Military District Headquarters-Gen. Kamensky): (5:47) "...simply destroy [it] even if it is over neutral waters? Are the orders to destroy it over neutral waters? Oh, well."
Kamensky: We must find out, maybe it is some civilian craft or God knows who."
Kornukov: "What civilian? [It] has flown over Kamchatka! It [came] from the ocean without identification. I am giving the order to attack if it crosses the State border."

So, US Navy ship warns incoming flight while under fire in war zone in a spot previously attacked, on one hand. On the other hand, just shoot it down and no bother trying to identify.. t I can't make the stretch these are equal.

Well played!

Somehow I think a few Admirals and part of the Ukraine Navy would disagree with your statement, "Pooty hasn't actually 'done' anything." He has radically repositioned his forces all around the Ukraine, now overflies the country to the point of violating normally observed sovereign airspace, and "stolen" a number of Navy ships. Most countries would take exception to this. You have to keep in mind that in Russia, private individuals are not treated much differently from the state-ran institutions. If you have a couple hours to burn, read a number of articles on the fraud, contracting, and money trail during the Sochi build up for the recent Winter Olympics. It might start to make sense to you why.

I definately thought that. NATO was losing relevence. Also, it's on the surface completely counter to Putin's apparent goal: reduce NATO and West influence. So what's happening? A few stragglers no one wants jump on the Russian train, but a majority who had put NATO plans on hold are now seriously reconsidering. This will in effect bring NATO closer and from more directions. Actually, not just in effect, it's already happening: US troops are now rotating through Eastern Europe to appease allies. This also might long term strengthen ties to US missile defense systems. Keep in mind the Russians signed a treaty with Ukraine saying they would respect soverign rights of the Ukraine in return for their former nuclear missiles. You have to think any future countries who bargain with Russia will take this into account...meaning, any agreement is barely worth the paper it's written on as long as Russia has a standing army.

However, I'm NOT drinking the looney Cool-Aid to the point I'd actually believe some similar plot as the idi0ts who think Bush/Israel/BoogeyManInc planned 9/11.