5 ms·

For those that don't know about the FVEY, here is a good documentary about it: https://ispydoc.com https://ispydoc.com

jonnybgood 8y ago
I skimmed it and that site seems highly sensationalist. I don’t know if that a good documentary. A couple of things from the site: “Operating independently from its governments...” Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? “Hackers Can Disable a Sniper Rifle—Or Change Its Target...” It wants me to post this to social media. What’s the context of this quote? It gives none. It seems like it wants me to post clickbait. If you want to learn about FVEY you’re probably better off just reading Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- dx87 8y ago
  I didn't go to the site, but the part about being able to hack sniper rifles is correct. It wasn't some complex nation-state level hack, it was just standard IoT device with poor security integrated into a rifle. The hack was done on the consumer version of one brand of rifle, thought the Army had ordered some for evaluation purposes. Here's an article about it: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rifleor-change-target/ https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rif...
  - donw 8y ago
    Hopefully this isn't too political of a reply, but this is a great example as to why there is such a lack of interest in "smart guns" -- e.g., weapons that require a fingerprint, a special ring, or some other electronic safety interlock. Not just because of the potential to be hacked, but also because electronics have a wider variety of failure modes as compared to the mechanical bits, most of which have remained both highly reliable and functionally unchanged over fifty, if not a hundred, years. Especially when you consider that, at least when it comes to safety, there's so much low-hanging fruit on the education and awareness front. Regardless of where you stand on the politics, it seems pretty straightforward that, in a country that today has more guns than people, that safety education should be part of school curricula at multiple points. On that note, we should probably also make sure everybody knows how to properly use a fire extinguisher, and I'm not sure we teach that, either... :/
- peteretep 8y ago
  > “Operating independently from its governments...” > Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? In Britain we'd probably make a distinction between elected government and civil service. I suspect the point being made here is of operation without sufficient legislative/executive oversight, which there seems to be at least some evidence for.
  - shaki-dora 8y ago
    They are, among other things, paid by the government. They are not independent of it, under no definition of any of those words. Maybe oversight is lax. Maybe oversight is perfect and everything happens exactly as the overseers want it. None of that changes anything about the truth of the initial claim. "Independent of" is patently false, and an obvious attempt to sensationalise.
    - peteretep 8y ago
      > They are not independent of it, under no definition of any of those words Sure. But the words actually used were: "operating independently from", which is different.
      - matt4077 8y ago
        You cannot "operate independently from" without also "being independent from". And you're just proving that bad-faith accusation, and splitting hairs into finer and finer strands.
        peteretep 8y ago
        I don't agree with your first comment at all, but it sounds like a particularly dull semantics argument.

I skimmed it and that site seems highly sensationalist. I don’t know if that a good documentary. A couple of things from the site: “Operating independently from its governments...” Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? “Hackers Can Disable a Sniper Rifle—Or Change Its Target...” It wants me to post this to social media. What’s the context of this quote? It gives none. It seems like it wants me to post clickbait. If you want to learn about FVEY you’re probably better off just reading Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

dx87 8y ago
I didn't go to the site, but the part about being able to hack sniper rifles is correct. It wasn't some complex nation-state level hack, it was just standard IoT device with poor security integrated into a rifle. The hack was done on the consumer version of one brand of rifle, thought the Army had ordered some for evaluation purposes. Here's an article about it: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rifleor-change-target/ https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rif...
- donw 8y ago
  Hopefully this isn't too political of a reply, but this is a great example as to why there is such a lack of interest in "smart guns" -- e.g., weapons that require a fingerprint, a special ring, or some other electronic safety interlock. Not just because of the potential to be hacked, but also because electronics have a wider variety of failure modes as compared to the mechanical bits, most of which have remained both highly reliable and functionally unchanged over fifty, if not a hundred, years. Especially when you consider that, at least when it comes to safety, there's so much low-hanging fruit on the education and awareness front. Regardless of where you stand on the politics, it seems pretty straightforward that, in a country that today has more guns than people, that safety education should be part of school curricula at multiple points. On that note, we should probably also make sure everybody knows how to properly use a fire extinguisher, and I'm not sure we teach that, either... :/
peteretep 8y ago
> “Operating independently from its governments...” > Are the agencies involved not part of their governments? Am I missing something? In Britain we'd probably make a distinction between elected government and civil service. I suspect the point being made here is of operation without sufficient legislative/executive oversight, which there seems to be at least some evidence for.
- shaki-dora 8y ago
  They are, among other things, paid by the government. They are not independent of it, under no definition of any of those words. Maybe oversight is lax. Maybe oversight is perfect and everything happens exactly as the overseers want it. None of that changes anything about the truth of the initial claim. "Independent of" is patently false, and an obvious attempt to sensationalise.
  - peteretep 8y ago
    > They are not independent of it, under no definition of any of those words Sure. But the words actually used were: "operating independently from", which is different.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      You cannot "operate independently from" without also "being independent from". And you're just proving that bad-faith accusation, and splitting hairs into finer and finer strands.
      - peteretep 8y ago
        I don't agree with your first comment at all, but it sounds like a particularly dull semantics argument.