Tag Archives: Danger Room

National Intelligence Council Peers Into its Crystal Ball

Posted on by
Reply

A couple days ago, Wired’s Danger Room blog posted a summary of the latest prognostications of the National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2030. While I think they hit upon many of the potential game-changer technologies, I’m puzzled by a couple of the conclusions highlighted in the Danger Room article.

The bits about turning humans into cyborgs sounds quite plausible in some ways–better sight and hearing, say. But as far as turning humans into six-million-dollar men, I don’t know. I could see exoskeletons coming before implants. And instead of implants, I think the more avatar/remotely-controlled robots might be more likely. It’s just a few generations beyond what we’re already doing on Mars when you think about it.

I thought it was interesting that they talked about the possibility of using biohacking, considering today Wired posted an article about “involuntarily penetrating and coercing the mind” of your enemies. Clausewitz perfected and warped at the same time. Although think about Madison Avenue getting ahold of that technology instead of the military.

I would have liked to have seen the National Intelligence Council say more about 3D printing, but their lack of information reveals how potentially upsetting this technology might be. Imagine insurgents printing up small drones instead of sending suicide bombers. Imagine hackers printing up copyrighted technology on demand. Imagine protective gear or prosthetics printed to fit your body perfectly. Imagine having a rudimentary Star Trek replicator in your house.

I also disagreed with the National Intelligence Council on a few points. I can’t see “instant cities” as Danger Room put it, but I could see mega-cities growing out of slums or where big cities currently do not exist. Or I could see mega-cities growing out of merged cities (say Baltimore to DC becoming one big mega-city).

I also think the Council overlooks environmental concerns and shifting ideas about taxation when they say that increased natural gas production will dominate alternative energy technologies. I think natural gas production energy will increase, but at the same time alternative energy tech does as well. I wouldn’t think one energy source would swamp a variety of sources, particularly in areas where natural gas isn’t as plentiful. But I was glad they saw climate change as real and undeniable.

What do you think of the report? What do you agree or disagree with? What technologies do you think they overlooked?

Submit to redditDigg ThisSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share via email

Space Programs: U.S. vs. China

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve previously written about the X-37B here, here, here, and here. The U.S. Air Force space plane recently landed, breaking space orbital endurance records. But as this Danger Room article points out, the international context of that record might be more important than many people think.

The Danger Room article says that although the U.S. Air Force is questioning whether the X-37B is cost effective (and Boeing might even shut down the facility where the space plane is assembled), “China is developing its own space plane called Shenlong — and apparently test-flew it for the first time in January last year.” China is moving faster into space than the U.S. originally predicted. So the U.S. plans for space may have to move faster in response.

Does this sound familiar? The U.S. amped up its space program after the Soviets launched Sputnik. However you feel about space and science, it was the Cold War that was a primary driver of U.S. efforts into space. Might China fill the gap left by our Soviet rivals becoming our Russian partners? Might China’s efforts to build a space plane and space station become the thing that launches a second space race?

It’s interesting to me, because China is undertaking these projects because they were excluded from other international efforts. Might the U.S. fund a mission to Mars as a consequence of this exclusion? Curiouser and curiouser. Might another space race be right around the corner? Keep an eye on the X-37B budget as well as any announcement of accelerating plans for a next-generation launch vehicle.

Submit to redditDigg ThisSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share via email

The Drones are Coming Home? The Drones are Already Here.

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve previously talked about drones operating in the U.S. here, here, here, here and here. Now Wired’s Danger Room has a great article on the 64 (!) drone bases on U.S. soil.

The article argues that most of the bases are in remote areas, so they are not well suited for domestic surveillance, and drone training is more likely. This seems logical, given that many of the bases are for small range drones. But as these drones come home and start getting used more and more domestically, they will likely start being used by non-military groups. Law enforcement is already using a variety of drones. And not all of them are short range. City-wide surveillance of multiple moving targets is already a reality. Welcome to the future. You are being watched.

Submit to redditDigg ThisSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share via email

The X-37B Finally Lands

Posted on by
Reply

Remember the Air Force’s secret space plane, the X-37B? If you don’t, I talked about it here, here, and here. Launched in March of last year, the X-37B was originally supposed to return from space after only 270 days. Now it is scheduled to land sometime in mid-June.

So what was the secret mission? What was the X-37B doing up in space? No one really knows. And no one knows why it was kept up in space for so long. Well, no one outside of the Air Force that is. Heck, the solar array aboard the X-37B was only supposed to provide enough power for nine months of operation in space. Some have theorized that it was spying on the Chinese space station Tiangong. Or maybe it is “a commando transport, a bomber or an orbital spy. It could launch, repair or reposition U.S. satellites in low orbit. It could carry sensors. It could even sneak up and disable or steal enemy satellites.”

Of course, the Air Force claims they are just trying to squeeze the X-37B as hard as they can to get every dollar out of it, claiming it’s a cost effective means of space travel. But reusable crafts tend to be more expensive, as the Danger Room article points out.

So what do you think? Put on your tinfoil hats and let ‘er rip. This thing is perfect for conspiracy theories.

Submit to redditDigg ThisSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share via email

City-Wide Drone Surveillance By the Dept. of Homeland Security?

Posted on by
1

The Department of Homeland Security recently put out a call for a “Wide Area Surveillance System” capable of monitoring five to ten square kilometers (about two to four square miles). Homeland Security wants this system to fit on a manned P-3 Orion spy plane or one of the two Predator drones DHS already has. Homeland Security wants this system to be capable of “persistent” surveillance (i.e., constantly monitor an area for as long as the craft is airborne) as well as seeing tens to hundreds of kilometers when not in persistent mode. Homeland Security also wants the collected video to be transmitted in near real-time (i.e., 12 seconds or less) to a control room or a beyond the line of sight mobile control room. The surveillance platform should be equipped with infrared cameras for nighttime monitoring and “automated, real time, motion detection capability that cues a spotter imager for target identification.”

I’ve written about the militarization of law enforcement here and the use of drones domestically here and here, so my opinions on the rise of the surveillance state should be well known to my readers. What we’re seeing with this call by Homeland Security is not the beginning of widespread domestic surveillance, but it is a leap forward. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, technology developed to fight insurgents and Al Qaeda will find its way back to the U.S. But the question remains: why is the federal government using that technology on its own citizens?

And as Wired’s Danger Room points out, the platform Homeland Security wants is already outdated. The Army’s ARGUS camera can view 36 square miles at once, and the Air Force’s Gorgon Stare can monitor an entire city at once. There is also talk of a the development of a fleet of spy blimps by the military, which will will generate 274 terabytes of information every hour. So I begin to wonder: is this “wide area surveillance system” just a test project for these larger systems? But that’s not my only question. Who will process all this data? Where will it be stored? For how long? Why is this data even needed? How does it improve homeland security? Not only do I have huge privacy concerns about this system, but it will also cost a fortune to develop and use. Is this really the best use of our money right now?

Thankfully, someone else (other than bloggers, that is) is eager to put a halt on the expansion of domestic surveillance by law enforcement and the federal government: the Supreme Court of the United States. Yesterday, the Court handed down its opinion in United States v. Jones, and you can find recaps here and here. The big take away is that the Court unanimously (!) agreed that law enforcement authorities could not attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect’s car and track his every move for a period of time without a probable-cause warrant. The Court rejected the argument (offered by the federal government) that this was not a search. But this opinion will likely require many future lawsuits because the Justices were not crystal clear about when exactly law enforcement authorities would need to get a warrant for such surveillance. Regardless, I am happy with the result, especially considering the federal government stated that this was a common surveillance technique by law enforcement–having used it thousands of times per year.

Prior to the Jones decision, my belief was that the surveillance state was on the rise–that the federal government and law enforcement authorities would seek (and receive) the tools to increase surveillance of citizens. I also believed such tools would likely be military in nature, due to the ready supply coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. After Jones though, I have a bit more hope–but just a bit. I hope it is the beginning of a push back. While I can understand some domestic use of drones (e.g., along the border), I do not have much sympathy for city-wide drone surveillance seemingly just for the heck of it. Knowing a drone is hovering over me doesn’t make me feel safer. It makes me feel angry that my own government not only feels it needs to watch me at all times, but that it also feels it can. Technology once used against Al Qaeda should not be so easily used against citizens.

What do you think? Leave your comments below.

Submit to redditDigg ThisSubmit to StumbleUpon
Share via email