5 ms·

I feared a simple, pontificating thought piece from the title. The author, in fact, provides a technical deep dive onto how the engineers fabricated a battery

I feared a simple, pontificating thought piece from the title. The author, in fact, provides a technical deep dive onto how the engineers fabricated a battery bomb and discusses easy supply chain attacks. A fascinating and well researched blog post.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago
This highlights the malicious, but most of the tech described is the far more mundane everyday aspect of what modern batteries are and how they work. Of the technical theory, like 5% or less is about "fabricat[ing] a battery bomb". Shading this as being a blog post about weapons is a deep misservice & actively deeply harmful to the author & discussion. It is about this weapons topic, I cannot deny, but 95% of the technical content is providing background contexts on what batteries are, how they are made: knowledgeable depth which again shows who Bunnie is & what Bunnie does. There's only a tiny semi-obvious bit of conjecture & malevolent device creation attached. 'Just point this transistor that way'. People who know their shit & can share are amazing, but I want to stress a care in emphasizing what is known & talked about here, because most of it is mundane as hell (we just didn't know it), and knowing it ought not be a risk or questionable in terms of motives. Focusing on the weapons part seems not the point of the article to me & shades a bad light/gives the wrong impression.
- edanm 2y ago
  I mean, the author of the piece gets to decide what to call it and what they believe it to be about. I don't think there's anything wrong with them deciding to frame this piece around that concept. This isn't some random submitter changing the title or something like that.
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Focusing on the weapons part seems not the point of the article to me & shades a bad light/gives the wrong impression. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion if you carefully read the article. Here are the third and fourth paragraphs of the article, reproduced verbatim: > The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. The current discourse around the potential reach of such explosive devices is clouded by the assumption that it’s technically difficult to implement and thus unlikely to find its way to our front door. > That assumption is wrong. It is both surprisingly easy to do, and could be nearly impossible to detect. After I read about the attack, it took half an hour to combine fairly common supply chain knowledge with Wikipedia queries to propose the mechanism detailed below. These two paragraphs explain that the article will seek to dispel the misconception that it would be difficult to create a fully-functional but booby-trapped lithium ion battery pack. The last sentence of the last paragraph explicitly states that the article will go on to describe a plausible mechanism for manufacturing a battery that is a functional battery and also a bomb. I get that some folks have a very strong opinion that talking about weapons of destruction is bad, bad, bad. But to shame folks for talking about the production of weapons of destruction when the stated goal of the article is to _talk about weapons of destruction_ is just plain fucked up.
  - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    The article is three parts. One part explanation of how batteries are made. This is joined with a very high level conjecture about how this perhaps could subverted to build a weapon. And then there's a policy/values part. I wrote what I wrote because it felt like comments were coming in swinging against the second part, saying this was a dangerous bad thing to write because it was technically informative. I feel like you are focusing onto her third party, the policy & strategy. Which is a great part, and is the part where Bunnie giving opinion. And I don't want to diminish that from Bunnie. But the bulk of the words & illustrations by page length was part 1, explaining batteries, and then part 2, some conjecture on how to subvert that. The policy part was dense & to the point (your couple sentences of quotes encompass almost all of it!), and leaves plenty to argue over & discuss, but I felt like it was part 2 that is 3rd rail radioactive, is where folks were saying you shouldn't even be allowed to post about this, oh no, techies are dangerous and a menace, and I was trying to show how that's not really what the technical content (of which there is super much) is super deep on.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      > And I don't want to diminish that from Bunnie. By reframing the article whose very, very explicit aim is to demonstrate how not-at-all difficult it is to build combination batteries/hand-grenades and whitewash it as primarily a primer on the techniques behind the construction of modern lithium ion batteries, you are *absolutely* minimizing Mr. Huang's article. You can find "How it's made: Lithium Ion Battery Pouches!" tutorials in many places. What you cannot find in many places are expert folks talking clearly and explicitly about how it wouldn't actually be difficult to build a fully-functional battery with a plastic explosive layer, put in the electronics to remotely detonate it AND make it so it would probably be REALLY hard to discover that it's a bomb. > ...it was part 2 that is 3rd rail radioactive... Yes, as I mentioned before: "I get that some folks have a very strong opinion that talking about weapons of destruction is bad, bad, bad. But to shame folks for talking about the production of weapons of destruction when the stated goal of the article is to _talk about weapons of destruction_ is just plain fucked up.". The article would be useless without the technical walkthrough, but the technical walkthrough is NOT the point of the article. The entire point of the article, visible from its title ("Turning Everyday Gadgets into Bombs Is a Bad Idea") to its opening paragraphs, which I have already quoted, to the final section, (which I quote in its entirety below) is to demonstrate how absolutely nontrivial creating a booby-trapped, remotely-activateable hand grenade that's indistinguishable from an ordinary battery is, and to humbly suggest that maybe this is weapons tech that should not be proliferated. To pretend otherwise does Mr. Huang an enormous disservice. > _Pandora’s Box is Open_ > Not all things that could exist should exist, and some ideas are better left unimplemented. Technology alone has no ethics: the difference between a patch and an exploit is the method in which a technology is disclosed. Exploding batteries have probably been conceived of and tested by spy agencies around the world, but never deployed en masse because while it may achieve a tactical win, it is too easy for weaker adversaries to copy the idea and justify its re-deployment in an asymmetric and devastating retaliation. > However, now that I’ve seen it executed, I am left with the terrifying realization that not only is it feasible, it’s relatively easy for any modestly-funded entity to implement. Not just our allies can do this – a wide cast of adversaries have this capability in their reach, from nation-states to cartels and gangs, to shady copycat battery factories just looking for a big payday (if chemical suppliers can moonlight in illicit drugs, what stops battery factories from dealing in bespoke munitions?). Bottom line is: we should approach the public policy debate around this assuming that someday, we could be victims of exploding batteries, too. Turning everyday objects into fragmentation grenades should be a crime, as it blurs the line between civilian and military technologies. > I fear that if we do not universally and swiftly condemn the practice of turning everyday gadgets into bombs, we risk legitimizing a military technology that can literally bring the front line of every conflict into your pocket, purse or home.
simoncion 2y ago
The stuff that Bunnie Huang writes is -IMO- always good. If you've an interest in electronics (whether DIY or small-scale commercial production) you should definitely set aside a day or three to read through his essays and articles.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

This highlights the malicious, but most of the tech described is the far more mundane everyday aspect of what modern batteries are and how they work. Of the technical theory, like 5% or less is about "fabricat[ing] a battery bomb". Shading this as being a blog post about weapons is a deep misservice & actively deeply harmful to the author & discussion. It is about this weapons topic, I cannot deny, but 95% of the technical content is providing background contexts on what batteries are, how they are made: knowledgeable depth which again shows who Bunnie is & what Bunnie does. There's only a tiny semi-obvious bit of conjecture & malevolent device creation attached. 'Just point this transistor that way'. People who know their shit & can share are amazing, but I want to stress a care in emphasizing what is known & talked about here, because most of it is mundane as hell (we just didn't know it), and knowing it ought not be a risk or questionable in terms of motives. Focusing on the weapons part seems not the point of the article to me & shades a bad light/gives the wrong impression.

edanm 2y ago
I mean, the author of the piece gets to decide what to call it and what they believe it to be about. I don't think there's anything wrong with them deciding to frame this piece around that concept. This isn't some random submitter changing the title or something like that.
simoncion 2y ago
> Focusing on the weapons part seems not the point of the article to me & shades a bad light/gives the wrong impression. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion if you carefully read the article. Here are the third and fourth paragraphs of the article, reproduced verbatim: > The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. The current discourse around the potential reach of such explosive devices is clouded by the assumption that it’s technically difficult to implement and thus unlikely to find its way to our front door. > That assumption is wrong. It is both surprisingly easy to do, and could be nearly impossible to detect. After I read about the attack, it took half an hour to combine fairly common supply chain knowledge with Wikipedia queries to propose the mechanism detailed below. These two paragraphs explain that the article will seek to dispel the misconception that it would be difficult to create a fully-functional but booby-trapped lithium ion battery pack. The last sentence of the last paragraph explicitly states that the article will go on to describe a plausible mechanism for manufacturing a battery that is a functional battery and also a bomb. I get that some folks have a very strong opinion that talking about weapons of destruction is bad, bad, bad. But to shame folks for talking about the production of weapons of destruction when the stated goal of the article is to _talk about weapons of destruction_ is just plain fucked up.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  The article is three parts. One part explanation of how batteries are made. This is joined with a very high level conjecture about how this perhaps could subverted to build a weapon. And then there's a policy/values part. I wrote what I wrote because it felt like comments were coming in swinging against the second part, saying this was a dangerous bad thing to write because it was technically informative. I feel like you are focusing onto her third party, the policy & strategy. Which is a great part, and is the part where Bunnie giving opinion. And I don't want to diminish that from Bunnie. But the bulk of the words & illustrations by page length was part 1, explaining batteries, and then part 2, some conjecture on how to subvert that. The policy part was dense & to the point (your couple sentences of quotes encompass almost all of it!), and leaves plenty to argue over & discuss, but I felt like it was part 2 that is 3rd rail radioactive, is where folks were saying you shouldn't even be allowed to post about this, oh no, techies are dangerous and a menace, and I was trying to show how that's not really what the technical content (of which there is super much) is super deep on.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > And I don't want to diminish that from Bunnie. By reframing the article whose very, very explicit aim is to demonstrate how not-at-all difficult it is to build combination batteries/hand-grenades and whitewash it as primarily a primer on the techniques behind the construction of modern lithium ion batteries, you are *absolutely* minimizing Mr. Huang's article. You can find "How it's made: Lithium Ion Battery Pouches!" tutorials in many places. What you cannot find in many places are expert folks talking clearly and explicitly about how it wouldn't actually be difficult to build a fully-functional battery with a plastic explosive layer, put in the electronics to remotely detonate it AND make it so it would probably be REALLY hard to discover that it's a bomb. > ...it was part 2 that is 3rd rail radioactive... Yes, as I mentioned before: "I get that some folks have a very strong opinion that talking about weapons of destruction is bad, bad, bad. But to shame folks for talking about the production of weapons of destruction when the stated goal of the article is to _talk about weapons of destruction_ is just plain fucked up.". The article would be useless without the technical walkthrough, but the technical walkthrough is NOT the point of the article. The entire point of the article, visible from its title ("Turning Everyday Gadgets into Bombs Is a Bad Idea") to its opening paragraphs, which I have already quoted, to the final section, (which I quote in its entirety below) is to demonstrate how absolutely nontrivial creating a booby-trapped, remotely-activateable hand grenade that's indistinguishable from an ordinary battery is, and to humbly suggest that maybe this is weapons tech that should not be proliferated. To pretend otherwise does Mr. Huang an enormous disservice. > _Pandora’s Box is Open_ > Not all things that could exist should exist, and some ideas are better left unimplemented. Technology alone has no ethics: the difference between a patch and an exploit is the method in which a technology is disclosed. Exploding batteries have probably been conceived of and tested by spy agencies around the world, but never deployed en masse because while it may achieve a tactical win, it is too easy for weaker adversaries to copy the idea and justify its re-deployment in an asymmetric and devastating retaliation. > However, now that I’ve seen it executed, I am left with the terrifying realization that not only is it feasible, it’s relatively easy for any modestly-funded entity to implement. Not just our allies can do this – a wide cast of adversaries have this capability in their reach, from nation-states to cartels and gangs, to shady copycat battery factories just looking for a big payday (if chemical suppliers can moonlight in illicit drugs, what stops battery factories from dealing in bespoke munitions?). Bottom line is: we should approach the public policy debate around this assuming that someday, we could be victims of exploding batteries, too. Turning everyday objects into fragmentation grenades should be a crime, as it blurs the line between civilian and military technologies. > I fear that if we do not universally and swiftly condemn the practice of turning everyday gadgets into bombs, we risk legitimizing a military technology that can literally bring the front line of every conflict into your pocket, purse or home.

simoncion 2y ago

The stuff that Bunnie Huang writes is -IMO- always good. If you've an interest in electronics (whether DIY or small-scale commercial production) you should definitely set aside a day or three to read through his essays and articles.