3 ms·
It should be mentioned that this work was mostly speculation, like the speaker said. Most of the attacks shown are not 'advanced' by any means. Like the speake
by Dinux 7y ago
It should be mentioned that this work was mostly speculation, like the speaker said.
Most of the attacks shown are not 'advanced' by any means. Like the speaker explained; 'anyone can buy a GPS jammer for a few bucks online'. The research they did indeed confirmed GPS is the weakspot. However, such geofence systems are a step-up from any equipment lacking this ability. Its not so much about rendering these systems completely unusable outside of their intended purpose, but more about slowing down their use. The later will have a much better chance of accomplishing this goal.
Assuming the claims made in this research are true, then its more likely the CIA wants to limit the use of US supplied weapons systems, not stop a war. And the CIA has quite the history there.
Also, the situations in which such weapons systems are deployed do not exactly resemble the lab-like circumstances (like faraday cage, EE-tooling et.) necessary for these attacks.
- onetimemanytime 7y agothis is critical, considering that today's "allies" are very likely to be our enemies tomorrow. Or they can just sell ManPads to another group and (mil and/or civilian) planes would be falling out of the skies. Imagine if Stingers we gave to the Taliban were still in working mode...
- wavefunction 7y agoThis seems like it will lead to more CIA arming of militant groups which according to your post means likely more enemy militant groups. I'd liken this to giving police officers tasers or firearms: instead of having to consider de-escalating situations, they can just shoot or tase someone instead. I would prefer my government be forced to carefully consider whether giving any group weapons rather than "oh yeah totally cool we've got ways to shut them down if they turn on us."