4 ms·
The article said that people knew the potential existed since the mid 90's so the problem was't ignorance it was arrogance and apathy.
by pmorici 17y ago
The article said that people knew the potential existed since the mid 90's so the problem was't ignorance it was arrogance and apathy.
- simonw 17y agoAwesome quote: "Fixing the security gap would have caused delays, according to current and former military officials. It would have added to the Predator’s price. Some officials worried that adding encryption would make it harder to quickly share time-sensitive data within the U.S. military, and with allies."
- rapind 17y agoSounds almost like typical client demands. "Seriously man, you're going to want to encrypt this. I know it's an extra 10k, but you've already spent 50 million. And I really think we should stick with Blue on the wings." "Nah, ditch the encryption. We're already over budget. But please do change the wings to green... wait red... now let's see your blue again?"
- kbob 17y agoOldest mistake in the book: since the adversaries dress differently, speak a different language, and are a different race, assume they must be idiots. The WSJ reporter fell into the same trap: Iraqis and Afghans couldn't have figured out how to tap a video feed on their own; they must have had Iranian help.
- pmorici 17y agoWell by that reasoning the reporter should think the Iranian's are idiots as well so what you're saying makes no sense.
- blueben 17y agoIran has nuclear technology now, so they're no longer idiots, just evil dobaddies. Nobody claimed this was logical or reasonable...
- rdtsc 17y ago> Iran has nuclear technology now, so they're no longer idiots, just evil dobaddies. As opposed to other "smart" countries that have nuclear technology but are noble dogoodies?
- roundsquare 17y agoleading some officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds. The officials came to that conclusion, not the WSJ. Also, see @pmorici's answer.
- gaius 17y agoThis is the mistake that allowed the Serbs to shoot down a Stealth bomber; aircrews communicating on open channels. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x... "At times, they acted like amateurs," Dani said, listing some ways the Serbs managed to breach NATO communications security, including eavesdropping on pilots' conversations with AWACS surveillance planes.
- kmcgivney 17y agoA bit of a nitpick, but no stealth bomber has ever been shot down. That was a stealth fighter.
- riffer 17y agoAgreed, but philosophically, is it still a stealth fighter if the guy the flying it is stupid enough to effectively turn off some of the technology?
- rdtsc 17y agoOK, so they shot a smaller, faster moving target. The original point still stands. It was an F-117. Yes, most "F" aircraft are air-to-air fighter aircraft. However F-117 is mostly used to attack ground targets, so it's "F" should be more like an "A" (If you want to nitpick that is ;-) )
- shpxnvz 17y agoActually, they are both subsonic aircraft and have a very similar top speed. The F117, however, has a larger radar cross signature, which makes it appear as a larger aircraft than the B2 in a radar return.
- skorgu 17y agoClosest thing I can find to a cite is [1] which indicates they have similar sized returns, about the size of a hummingbird (!). [1] http://www.answers.com/topic/stealth-technology http://www.answers.com/topic/stealth-technology
- stcredzero 17y agoI rather think it was the classic pointy-haired boss mistake. "I can't understand this video feed stuff, so those towel-heads shouldn't be able to either!"