Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Gizmos that a decade ago would have been viewed entirely as communications tools and toys are now potential surveillance and killing machines.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Technology in Wartime

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted January 3, 2008.


Gizmos that a decade ago would have been viewed entirely as communications tools and toys are now potential surveillance and killing machines.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

War changes everything, including technology. In the United States we are roughly six years into what the Bush Administration calls the "war on terror," and what hundreds of thousands of soldiers know as the occupation of Iraq. Gizmos that a decade ago would have been viewed entirely as communications tools and toys are now potential surveillance and killing machines.

Don't believe me? Consider how much the Web has changed. Referred to naively ten years ago by Bill Clinton and Co. as the friendly, welcoming "information superhighway," the Web is now the NSA's surveillance playground. Last year, a whistleblower at AT&T revealed that every bit of internet traffic routed by AT&T was also being routed through an NSA surveillance system. Millions of innocent people's private internet activities, including online purchases and e-mail, were being watched without warrants.

Cuddly consumer robots epitomized by Sony's Aibo robot dog have changed too. iRobot, the US company that makes adorable Roomba vacuum robots, just announced a huge deal with the military to make reconnaissance and killing robots called PackBots for use in combat zones. Already, 50 PackBots have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the ground versions of unmanned aerial vehicles, remote-controlled spy planes that can also shoot weapons.

Tech security expert Bruce Schneier describes technology as having "dual uses": one for peacetime, and one for war. The Wii video game console, for example, is great for translating physical movements into movements on screen. That makes Wii great for party games where you swing your arms to move dancing penguins on the screen. It also makes a great interface for remote-controlled guns in a combat robot. Just move your arm to aim.

In a time of war, you can't enjoy a party game without thinking about your game console could be used to kill people. I realize that sounds melodramatic, but looked at pragmatically it's quite simply true.

Once you realize that every form of technology has a dual use, it becomes much easier to argue for ways of limiting the uses that aren't ethical or legal. Consider that a roboticized anti-aircraft cannon (similar to the PackBot) turned on its operators during a field exercise in South Africa last October, killing nine people before it ran out of ammo. The software error that led this robot to slaughter friendly soldiers is no different from errors that make your Roomba crash. What do we draw from this analogy? Perhaps robots that are perfectly legal as vacuums should be illegal on the battlefield? Perhaps no weapon should ever be completely autonomous like the Roomba is?

Questions like these led me and my colleagues at Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) to put together a conference at Stanford University on the topic of technology in wartime, focusing especially on ethics and the law. Coming up this January 26, the conference will be a day packed with talks and panels about everything from dual use technology (Bruce Schneier will be a keynote) to what happens when robots commit war crimes. We'll also hear from people who are appropriating military technologies for human rights causes: the very technologies that let military spies hide online also help human rights workers and dissidents hide online while still getting their subversive messages out.

We'll also have a panel on so-called cyberterrorism, or destructive hacks aimed at taking down a nation's tech infrastructure. But should fears of cyberterror lead to total government surveillance of the internet? Cindy Cohn, Electronic Frontier Foundation's legal director, will talk about how the NSA used AT&T to spy on US citizens, and the suit EFF has brought against AT&T for violating its customer's privacy rights.

If you want to find out how to change the way militaries are appropriating consumer tech, or just want to learn more about war is changing the way we use technology, come out to Stanford on Jan. 26 for the conference. It's open to the public, and you can register at www.technologyinwartime.org. The cost of admission gets a you free lunch and a t-shirt, as well as a chance to talk to some of the smartest people in the field. See you there!

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: technology, war

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who wants smart defense to replace buggy offense.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Good luck, Annalee!
Posted by: johnclark on Jan 4, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad I live on the other coast, I would like to attend. I would say that the military has a long history in driving technology. After all -- ARPAnet.

Too many developers lack the moral framework to judge what money to accept -- I see this as what's driving the robots into uniform. It's just too easy to tell yourself that the DoD is really building a better vacuum, not the other way around. I'm glad you're out there helping the techno-nerds see the light.

When I see those military ads w/ the kid controlling the drone, I almost want to get rid of the Wii I just bought my kids. But I remember that the same technology that was developed to survive a nuke attack (TCP/IP) is what I'll be using when I hit the send button.

Sorry Alternet buried you today. Maybe you'd get some play on "/." but if your Civi site is on a shared server, you might wanta' put it up on somebody else's box.

Again, good luck with the conf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looks like a good conference - but something's missing.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 6, 2008 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Essentially, almost all technology, no matter how beneficial some uses can be, can be used for destructive purposes. Communication systems can be used to share information and respond to natural disasters, but they can also be used to coordinate attacks on peaceful civilians. Satellites can be used to monitor global warming and deforestation, but they can also be used to spy on political gatherings and to track political dissidents.

The two issues of greatest concern that seems to be lacking from the conference, however, are those of nuclear and biological warfare technology.

Currently, the nuclear industry is pushing hard for an expansion of nuclear power - but the side effects do include proliferation of nuclear weapons, an increased amount of plutonium in the world, which can be used to create a nuclear bomb without any difficult and costly isotopic enrichment process. It is relatively easy to extract plutonium from so-called "spent" fuel rods from nuclear reactors. This topic has not been very widely discussed.

Equally troubling is the large expansion of biowarfare research in the United States in the post-anthrax attacks era. Vaccine technology, for example, has largely put an end to devastating diseases like polio (but not HIV/AIDS), but is also a critical component of biowarfare strategies - for example, whoever loaded the 9/18 and 10/9 anthrax letters was probably vaccinated against anthrax (though they could also have taken a prophylactic course of the antibiotic cipro, which would be a less certain protection from infection).

The expanded push towards secretive biowarfare research in the U.S. is highly troubling. It's worth reading Sherwood Ross's The Big Profits in Biowarfare Research - Corporate America's Deadliest Secret for background on what's going on in pharmaceutical, government and academic laboratories around the U.S. these days.

However, that article has some errors in it as well, and doesn't mention the #1 biowarfare contractor for the U.S. - Battelle Memorial Institute, whose microbial facility at West Jefferson, Ohio, as well as the facility at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, are actually the prime suspects in the 2001 anthrax attacks.

It's highly unlikely that the claim made by Ross, i.e. ". . . there were those five people killed in the mysterious attacks on Congress of October, 2001 --- attacks that suspiciously emanated from a government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md." is true - since the Fort Detrick scientists were the ones who identified the high-tech nature of the anthrax spores - a trillion spores per gram, and coated with an electrostatic repulsion agent consisting of nano-silica material. The only people who had access to such technology were the spooky folks at Battelle Memorial Insititute, who had created such material previously under "Project Clear Vision."

Immediately after the Fort Detrick scientists gave their diagnosis, the FBI HMRU asked for a 'second opinion' from the West Jefferson Battelle Memorial facility in Ohio - and they gave the spores a pressurived steam treatment, which destroyed the material, and then BMI claimed that the spores were a low-tech preparation. That's highly suspicious behavior, at the very least - all reported by Richard Preston, author of "The Hot Zone", in his book "The Demon in the Freezer." Preston was uniquely situated to get the inside line on the anthrax attacks, due to his previous reporting on Ebola outbreaks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hype and Effects
Posted by: talkville on Jan 7, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All during the 90's and up to our present, Technology was made into a Symbol of Redemption, the Talisman that would save us from Everything and finally provide the means to a Bountiful Life.

Technology is a collection of tools. A wrench can be used to tighten a bolt or to bash another over the head. The Cyber Revolution centers on Control. And those who control rule. No ruling class will voluntarily relinquish its powers and privileges. This is in large part a reason that "Youth" is so much on the radar. From child-hood toys and games to the System. Liberty or Slavery? The developing structures of YouTube and Facebook are worthy of very close scrutiny. Much like land, air and water, knowledge and information are now reified as commodities.

A cell phone and pc serve virtually un-limited purposes, and not only for those who have them. Satellites monitor where you are -- culturally, socially, economically and politically.

No sense in keeping a Diary or Journal any more; just request one from your provider (that is, if they'll release it to you!).

A user's toy is a policeman's tool.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]