4 ms·

US Army picks Android to power its first smartphone

24 points by markkat 15y ago

simonsarris 15y ago
Three thoughts immediately came to mind: Doesn't the US spend enough on the military already?! I wonder how much information an enemy could obtain if they got a hold of one of these? And then the realization that the answer is probably "not much" and that by an enemy holding on to one, they are almost certainly giving away their position. So I wonder if a lot of the utility in the long run will come from tracking phones that get lost and stolen on a battlefield.
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  First, No, we really don't spend enough on the Military. If you want to spend less money on the Military try voting for Presidents who don't start wars (though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you). Right now you have U.S. troops deployed in three active military conflicts AND patrolling the entire world's oceans while their budget is being cut. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have proper body armor to this day! (And for those who think we've handed Libya over to NATO I'd point out that over 80% of NATO's military resources are U.S. Resources and the Supreme European Commander of NATO is an American Admiral) Second any communication device used by the military is both encrypted like crazy and has remote wipe capabilities. Their walkie talkies use rotating, encrypted digital channels these days. So I don't think a cell. phone is going to be a gold mine of information. In fact, on the theory that smartphones could give soldiers access to documents they'd normally have to carry physical copies of the cell. phone actually increases security on the ground Edit: To elaborate on the NATO point count the Aircraft Carriers. The U.S. has 12 in service. Every other country in NATO combined has 6.
  - muhfuhkuh 15y ago
    "though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you" Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan as that was the actual war where the Taliban were suspected of hiding bin Laden. "while their budget is being cut" I seem to recall that all the "cuts" of late are being led almost exclusively by the new "anti-establishment" conservatives and tea party republicans, of which you seem to be, so joke's on you.
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      I said "start wars" so saying Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan doesn't really discredit that. As far as the cuts I wasn't taking a side either way. I'm not a conservative or a tea party activist (in fact I think it's foolish to think we can cut taxes given the amount of debt we've run up over the last decade) Now a question for you: Has it occurred to you that your "Us vs. Them" attitude has perverted your view of the world? I said nothing Conservative or Tea Party-esque in my original post. In fact I attacked the idea of Presidents starting wars which Bush did at least twice as much as Obama did. So assuming I was either was simply not rational.
  - yequalsx 15y ago
    Are you saying that we don't spend enough on the military given the tasks that our leaders have given the military? Or are you saying that as a general principle the level of funding for the military is too small? Personally I think the military budget should be drastically cut. This includes cutting back on military commitments. I don't see how it is efficacious for the U.S. to spend around 5% GDP on defense matters while European countries spend much leas as a percent of GDP. It does not appear to me that the average American benefits enough to justify this expense.
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      I'm saying we don't spend enough given the tasks they have been assigned. If the President (whoever he might be) wants to be the World's Police Man than we need to spend accordingly and that's not what's happening now. What's happening now is we're sending soldiers into harm's way with insufficient protection because we can't afford enough body armor. Think about this for a second. From Bush's first day in office to now the National Debt increased from $5.73 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion dollars yet with all that money our Soldiers are having to ask their families to buy them body armor with personal funds because the Government won't. That's obscene.
- markkat 15y ago
  I think a large part of the motivation is to limit friendly fire. My father served in Vietnam. He said he was shot at by the US much more often than by the VC. Once he and a pal were sent to guard the perimeter. Just after they got into position, their base opened up on them.
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    A cell. phone is not going to prevent friendly fire. The military already has extensive technology for this (Google "Identification Friend or Foe"). More to the point if you've ever been in a live fire situation you realize fairly quickly it isn't a situation where you could hear a cell. phone (or the guy next to you unless he's screaming)
    - markkat 15y ago
      I don't mean a phone call to stop ff, just tracking the positions of the phones to prevent it.
      - TomOfTTB 15y ago
        With all due respect to Military GPS (which is more accurate than Consumer GPS) it can't identify friendly combatants from unfriendly ones on the ground (and again they have IFF for that). As far as air strikes they're only called in if you have eyes on the target. The whole process is fairly complicated in that a commander on the ground has to order the air strike from an Analyst (usually in Florida). The analyst then reviews satellite and low altitude surveillance air craft footage to confirm the target and only then is it passed on to the drone pilot (usually in Nevada). To the best of my knowledge only 2 U.S. soldiers have ever been killed by air-based friendly fire in the modern (aka Predator Drone) era (and I remember because it was only a couple weeks ago and the articles cited it as the first time that had ever happened)
    - gte910h 15y ago
      IFF is a plane/vehicles thing really.
ares2012 15y ago
Anyone else wondering if they are going to disable the feature that records the location of Android devices and sends it back to Google?
- code_duck 15y ago
  It's not hidden or secret at all, and I'm pretty sure they'll have complete control of the OS here. I'm not wondering if the military can figure out how to do that.
- yanw 15y ago
  I suppose it's this week's flavor of moral/techno panic so I won't dismiss this question as stupid. Android is opensource so they can use and modify it as they please, as for sending location data, it's the maps app that sends triangulation data when used to refine it's location capabilities, it's covered in the TOS and the data is anonymous. And since people evidentially don't like wardriving this method is a more efficient and less costly alternative and the benefit to the user is obvious.
  - ares2012 15y ago
    You have absolutely no sense of humor.
    - yanw 15y ago
      Evidently :)
TomOfTTB 15y ago
My only problem with this article is it frames it in consumer terms which obscures the point. The military would never use iOS because the Military demands complete obedience from their contractors and Apple would never give them that. What's interesting is they aren't using proprietary software from Microsoft. Microsoft has a history of bending over backwards for Military contracts and I have no doubt they did everything in their power to get Windows Embedded on these phones. So the fact that Android won out shows proprietary software can't count on guaranteed government contracts like it used to.
- gte910h 15y ago
  The military loves using open source software.
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    It depends what you mean by that. The military requires companies hand over their source code for security reasons anyway. So even Windows is open source to the Military (though in fairness it's also available to other select partners).
    - lucasjung 15y ago
      Not true. Sometimes, contracts are written such that the contractor must provide all of its source code to the military. In these cases, DoD pays a significant premium. As budgets tighten, this practice has become less and less common. Nowdays it's typically only done if there is an expectation that the code will be used, built upon, and modified for a significant length of time, in which case it would be cost-effective for the government to own the code so that they can bid out future work competitively.
      - TomOfTTB 15y ago
        I'm sorry but I just don't believe that. I'm not calling you a liar since you (or I) could have heard wrong but the simple fact is there's too many ways for a software program to mine data for the Military not to at least look at the source code before deploying it. So I can't see them implementing closed source software
eogas 15y ago
It seems like this headline was crafted specifically to incite a mobile OS flamewar. And yet, there is very little content in the article that explains why or to what extent Android will be used. Obviously they need an OS that is highly customizable, and I assume that's why Android is an easy choice. But to me, it seems like the OS is fairly unimportant on such a purpose-built device. What I'm more interested is how they intend on setting up reliable communications between the devices. Obviously they can't go into a warzone and expect there to be Verizon cell towers every few miles. I assume there is already a system in place, but the article doesn't explain any of this, or how the hardware will have to adapt to the existing system. Or how the OS will have to be modified to use the different hardware. All around a pretty stupid article. I've seen much better from ars.

24 points by markkat 15y ago

Three thoughts immediately came to mind: Doesn't the US spend enough on the military already?! I wonder how much information an enemy could obtain if they got a hold of one of these? And then the realization that the answer is probably "not much" and that by an enemy holding on to one, they are almost certainly giving away their position. So I wonder if a lot of the utility in the long run will come from tracking phones that get lost and stolen on a battlefield.

TomOfTTB 15y ago
First, No, we really don't spend enough on the Military. If you want to spend less money on the Military try voting for Presidents who don't start wars (though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you). Right now you have U.S. troops deployed in three active military conflicts AND patrolling the entire world's oceans while their budget is being cut. Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have proper body armor to this day! (And for those who think we've handed Libya over to NATO I'd point out that over 80% of NATO's military resources are U.S. Resources and the Supreme European Commander of NATO is an American Admiral) Second any communication device used by the military is both encrypted like crazy and has remote wipe capabilities. Their walkie talkies use rotating, encrypted digital channels these days. So I don't think a cell. phone is going to be a gold mine of information. In fact, on the theory that smartphones could give soldiers access to documents they'd normally have to carry physical copies of the cell. phone actually increases security on the ground Edit: To elaborate on the NATO point count the Aircraft Carriers. The U.S. has 12 in service. Every other country in NATO combined has 6.
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  "though since you seem like a liberal you probably thought you were doing that last time so joke's on you" Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan as that was the actual war where the Taliban were suspected of hiding bin Laden. "while their budget is being cut" I seem to recall that all the "cuts" of late are being led almost exclusively by the new "anti-establishment" conservatives and tea party republicans, of which you seem to be, so joke's on you.
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    I said "start wars" so saying Obama campaigned on escalating Afghanistan doesn't really discredit that. As far as the cuts I wasn't taking a side either way. I'm not a conservative or a tea party activist (in fact I think it's foolish to think we can cut taxes given the amount of debt we've run up over the last decade) Now a question for you: Has it occurred to you that your "Us vs. Them" attitude has perverted your view of the world? I said nothing Conservative or Tea Party-esque in my original post. In fact I attacked the idea of Presidents starting wars which Bush did at least twice as much as Obama did. So assuming I was either was simply not rational.
- yequalsx 15y ago
  Are you saying that we don't spend enough on the military given the tasks that our leaders have given the military? Or are you saying that as a general principle the level of funding for the military is too small? Personally I think the military budget should be drastically cut. This includes cutting back on military commitments. I don't see how it is efficacious for the U.S. to spend around 5% GDP on defense matters while European countries spend much leas as a percent of GDP. It does not appear to me that the average American benefits enough to justify this expense.
  - TomOfTTB 15y ago
    I'm saying we don't spend enough given the tasks they have been assigned. If the President (whoever he might be) wants to be the World's Police Man than we need to spend accordingly and that's not what's happening now. What's happening now is we're sending soldiers into harm's way with insufficient protection because we can't afford enough body armor. Think about this for a second. From Bush's first day in office to now the National Debt increased from $5.73 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion dollars yet with all that money our Soldiers are having to ask their families to buy them body armor with personal funds because the Government won't. That's obscene.
markkat 15y ago
I think a large part of the motivation is to limit friendly fire. My father served in Vietnam. He said he was shot at by the US much more often than by the VC. Once he and a pal were sent to guard the perimeter. Just after they got into position, their base opened up on them.
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  A cell. phone is not going to prevent friendly fire. The military already has extensive technology for this (Google "Identification Friend or Foe"). More to the point if you've ever been in a live fire situation you realize fairly quickly it isn't a situation where you could hear a cell. phone (or the guy next to you unless he's screaming)
  - markkat 15y ago
    I don't mean a phone call to stop ff, just tracking the positions of the phones to prevent it.
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      With all due respect to Military GPS (which is more accurate than Consumer GPS) it can't identify friendly combatants from unfriendly ones on the ground (and again they have IFF for that). As far as air strikes they're only called in if you have eyes on the target. The whole process is fairly complicated in that a commander on the ground has to order the air strike from an Analyst (usually in Florida). The analyst then reviews satellite and low altitude surveillance air craft footage to confirm the target and only then is it passed on to the drone pilot (usually in Nevada). To the best of my knowledge only 2 U.S. soldiers have ever been killed by air-based friendly fire in the modern (aka Predator Drone) era (and I remember because it was only a couple weeks ago and the articles cited it as the first time that had ever happened)
  - gte910h 15y ago
    IFF is a plane/vehicles thing really.

ares2012 15y ago

Anyone else wondering if they are going to disable the feature that records the location of Android devices and sends it back to Google?

code_duck 15y ago
It's not hidden or secret at all, and I'm pretty sure they'll have complete control of the OS here. I'm not wondering if the military can figure out how to do that.
yanw 15y ago
I suppose it's this week's flavor of moral/techno panic so I won't dismiss this question as stupid. Android is opensource so they can use and modify it as they please, as for sending location data, it's the maps app that sends triangulation data when used to refine it's location capabilities, it's covered in the TOS and the data is anonymous. And since people evidentially don't like wardriving this method is a more efficient and less costly alternative and the benefit to the user is obvious.
- ares2012 15y ago
  You have absolutely no sense of humor.
  - yanw 15y ago
    Evidently :)

TomOfTTB 15y ago

My only problem with this article is it frames it in consumer terms which obscures the point. The military would never use iOS because the Military demands complete obedience from their contractors and Apple would never give them that. What's interesting is they aren't using proprietary software from Microsoft. Microsoft has a history of bending over backwards for Military contracts and I have no doubt they did everything in their power to get Windows Embedded on these phones. So the fact that Android won out shows proprietary software can't count on guaranteed government contracts like it used to.

gte910h 15y ago
The military loves using open source software.
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  It depends what you mean by that. The military requires companies hand over their source code for security reasons anyway. So even Windows is open source to the Military (though in fairness it's also available to other select partners).
  - lucasjung 15y ago
    Not true. Sometimes, contracts are written such that the contractor must provide all of its source code to the military. In these cases, DoD pays a significant premium. As budgets tighten, this practice has become less and less common. Nowdays it's typically only done if there is an expectation that the code will be used, built upon, and modified for a significant length of time, in which case it would be cost-effective for the government to own the code so that they can bid out future work competitively.
    - TomOfTTB 15y ago
      I'm sorry but I just don't believe that. I'm not calling you a liar since you (or I) could have heard wrong but the simple fact is there's too many ways for a software program to mine data for the Military not to at least look at the source code before deploying it. So I can't see them implementing closed source software

eogas 15y ago

It seems like this headline was crafted specifically to incite a mobile OS flamewar. And yet, there is very little content in the article that explains why or to what extent Android will be used. Obviously they need an OS that is highly customizable, and I assume that's why Android is an easy choice. But to me, it seems like the OS is fairly unimportant on such a purpose-built device. What I'm more interested is how they intend on setting up reliable communications between the devices. Obviously they can't go into a warzone and expect there to be Verizon cell towers every few miles. I assume there is already a system in place, but the article doesn't explain any of this, or how the hardware will have to adapt to the existing system. Or how the OS will have to be modified to use the different hardware. All around a pretty stupid article. I've seen much better from ars.